Your conclusion and comments here are just plain wrong.  Try again.

Could you possibly make a more useless comment?

(That's not a dare, or an invitation.)

Andy's gotten a little coterie of flat earthers that follow him around now. Quite a compliment, I'd say!

grist.org

For the moment try to forget both the IPCC and its naysayers and their arguments for and against global Warming.  With your own unjaundiced eye, and your trusty computer, take a good look at the Arctic and Antarctic poles; check out the many fresh-water glaciers located in both the northern and southern hemispheres and all five continents; examine the scenes of climate disaster and compare current events and past catastrophes.

Now think ahead - just a few months - to springtime here in the north half of the world.  As the sun's rays increase in strength day by day, they will begin to melt the southside of the drifts piled up in our driveways, and awaken the spring bulbs in the ground, and call the song-birds back from the south.

How come all this will be happening earlier and earlier every year, measurably so?  Make up your own mind and don't rely on anyone else's book to tell you what's happening.  Just remember, the trend to warmth will not stop because it gets uncomfortable, but only because we do something about it.

Des Emery

"Andy's gotten a little coterie of flat earthers that follow him around now. Quite a compliment, I'd say!"

Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!

As they say in my little corner of the woods: High trees catch a lot of wind... Dr Dessler sticks his neck out and these yoyo's continue to flatulate there ill informed, ignorant nonsense.

I am still waiting for someone to show up who does not believe CO2 is the cause for the observed warming. Someone who can actually make a proper argument and doesn't use the word Gore every five lines.... I so much don't want to believe in this global warming thing but none of these skeptics are even remotely believable. Very frustrating. I don't even have a bucket of sand big enough to fit my head in. Maybe one of our esteemed skeptics here has a spare one?

Hello...Hello....Are you there?....Ar you there?....AGW is real and nothing says otherwise case closed.....AGW is real and nothing says otherwise case closed.......

Yes, you AGW fanatics are so original and such critical thinkers.  I also love all the Hillary and Obama ads on Dr. Dessler's site, it adds the proper perspective to this "blog".

Dr Dessler;   I'm rather surprised for several reasons, that in your lead article, you wrote:

"For more on the problem of the upper troposphere, see this RealClimate post. (See also Ray Pierrehumbert's dissection of Courtillot's theory here and here)."

REASON 1)   As a scientist, you should be aware that Michael Mann and his supporters were the instigators of the RealClimate website.  You should also be aware that Mann et al were the inventors of the infamous hockey-stick, which being manna to the IPCC was clarioned in every nook and cranny of the various 2001 report sections, and at podia etc.
However, as you know, the hockey-stick has since been shown to be either scientific fraud or grossly incompetent or both, despite Mann et al's vigorous and long defence of it on said website.  The long sad story of denial was closed by the IPCC expunging that 2001 warhorse for their 2007 report, for obvious reasons.
So these are the guys together with extremist colleagues such as Ray Pierrehumbert that run that fountain of wisdom that you recommend.  
For another position statement from a mainstream "believer" perspective, here is what Jeff McIntyre Strasburg, the editor in chief of Green Options website has had to say:
"...RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents..."
Do you get the word hardcore?

REASON 2)  The references you make show a bunch of scientists in open disagreement.  What were you saying earlier about everyone agreeing on the science?  

REASON 3)  Carrying on from 2) You fail to mention the 5 year programme under-way at CERN, where over 50 scientists apparently do not share your views.  CERN, an international organisation that has actually agreed on something, is making a big investment to confirm Svensmark's indicative results from his cellar concerning cosmic rays which are indirectly regulated on Earth by one of the activities of the Sun.

Quote CERN:  The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"

Oh dear, I can hear the collective sigh;  we don't want to hear any good news from CERN

Hey Greyfalcon,

I'm not going to argue with you on your points 1 and 2.  

But to your point 3 "There is no correlation between low clouds and GCR", I think you'll have to wait to see if the CERN CLOUD study confirms what Svensmark showed in a simple lab experiment.

Regards,

Max

Josullivan

Sorry jo' there has been so-much insult flying our way that I did not remember your words precisely.  In response to the infinite wisdom of David Roberts, who cautions on things like "don't feed the trolls", you actually wrote something to the same effect:

"Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"

I take it that you agree with the rest of my post including that the MS Works dictionary defines YOU as a TROLL?

Hi Greyfalcon,

Don't think "peer review" is going to stop any changes that may (or may not) occur in solar activity in sun cycles 24 and 25.  

I fervently hope you, Pangolin and your "peer review" aficionados are right.  I'd much rather have another 0.7 degree C increase in temperature over the next 100 years from AGW (or whatever) than a new Little Ice Age from another Maunder minimum, since this would be the MOTHER of all "solar distractions" (Andrew's term).

But, cheer up, we will get a chance to see from the actual developments who is right pretty soon, without even needing any "peer-reviewed" postulations as you prefer or "pseudo-scientific totally silly" explanations as Pangolin seems to like better.

Max

Hi Greyfalcon,

Since global temperature records have been kept (based on the UK's Hadley Centre), and we have been emerging from the Little Ice Age, there have been several multi-decadal swings from warming to cooling, with an overall slight warming trend.
Period    Trend per decade deg.C    Years    Linear increase over period deg.C
1860-1879    0.196    20    0.39
1879-1906    -0.047    27    -0.13
1906-1940    0.161    35    0.56
1940-1976    -0.020    36    -0.07
1976-2007    0.180    31    0.56

Between 1850 and around 1860 there was a very slight cooling trend.  This trend reversed to a warming trend for the next 20 years until around 1879 (the highest decadal rate of increase since records have been taken).  This was followed by another cooling trend until around 1906.  Then came another warming trend until around 1940, followed by a slight cooling trend until around 1976.  Following this, we have had a trend with the second highest decadal rate of increase, which appears to have reached a "plateau" or significant slowing down from 1998 to today.

The longer-term trend over all these cycles has been an increase of somewhat less than 1 degree C over the 150+ years of measurement.  This average rate of increase is equivalent to the trend for the past ten years (1998-2007), which was around 0.06 degrees C per decade (this recent slowdown has also been confirmed by UAH satellite readings).

IPCC believes it knows what has "likely" caused the most recent warming trend since 1976 (AGW, of course).  The preceding cooling trend is barely referred to by IPCC, but is explained by the somewhat speculative suggestion of human aerosol emissions that cancelled out the underlying AGW effect.  Previous warming and cooling periods (before there was much AGW) are not mentioned at all.

But if we forget all the theoretical computer models and "peer-reviewed" hype that is out there and just look past history, it seems reasonable that we will see a continuation of what has happened over the past 150 years.  This would mean that we will continue to have 20+ year swings in the rate of change but that on overall average, the 1850-2007 150+-year trend (or the most recent 1998-2007 decadal trend) would continue over the 21st century, bringing another 100-year increase of around 0.6 degrees C from today until around 2100.

All other factors (solar influence, etc.) being equal, of course (which they probably aren't).

Makes sense to me.  What do you think?

Max

 Following-on from Max's comments, where you, GreyF, can only see black in the temperature trends, one thing that I find ironic is the faith that is still placed in the various regional dendro-proxy reconstructions, including by some hardcore believers in the disgraced manna Graph called Hockey-Stick.  It is necessary in these studies to calibrate the ancient tree-ring growth rates to known modern instrumental data, and it is a tricky decision to know where to go in this calibration, because as Max has pointed out, the decadal trend in T's is far from linear.  What can be said is that whilst the published global temperatures are trending up in recent decades, (If we ignore the recent plateau), tree-ring growth rates are sharply trending DOWN since about 1960.  This is despite that the CO2 levels are increasing which prima facie should result in compound acceleration in growth.  This has been described for the past ten years or so as "The Divergence Problem", and whilst there are I recall some six differing hypotheses either way, there is no resolution.

 You went very quiet and on hiatus when I pointed out to you that when you asserted the Bible according to RealClimate, that galactic cosmic rays have no influence on cloud formation, that contrary-wise CERN is conducting a massive 5-year research programme (CLOUD) with over 50 multi-discipline scientists from respected institutions around the world.  This contrast in both depth of expertise and confidence is a bit like comparing your Mouse with a Moose. No wonder you have gone silent on this!

Grey, please start thinking grey, or even white, not black.
Things may not be as bad as you hope they are!

Max, you are a pathetic person who can only repeat drivel that he reads on pseudo-science junk sites.
Enough is enough. Go away, everyone who has any knowledge of climate science is completely fed up of you, Blckwallaby, BenP and other spreaders of junk science (are you really separate people or are you playing games?).

FYI
Black Wallaby lives in Melbourne Australia.
Max Manacker lives in Switzerland
BenP......I dunno.
If you read our language and style with attempted cognisance and if you might have a modicum of intelligence, you should be able to see that we are very independent thinking souls.

BTW....are you able to actually contribute something sensible in the debate, rather than vague zero nonsense?

Black Wallaby, Max, BenP I don't care if you are three people or a hundred and three.

You are all obviously lacking in science skills and knowledge that it is impossible to have any sort of serious discussion at all.

The limit of your "scientific" ability is to quote from junk science sites like E&E, JAPS, JunkScience, CO2Science, and other pseudo-science sites.

I don't know why Andrew puts up with all the dishonest nonsense you post on this site and others.

Start reading and understanding real science and people will treat you with more respect.

Ian, I have read a lot of "real science" and I understand the basics fairly well.  IPCC does not have the monopoly on "real science".  There are some "real scientists" out there that do not agree with the IPCC "mainstream" position on AGW.  There are even more who disagree with the hysterical "imminent disaster" and "tipping point" predictions of the politicians or alarmists in the scientific community, who take the IPCC worst case scenarios and exaggerate these even further. This is not "real science", Ian.  It is political hype and fear mongering.

Andrew does not have to "put up with dishonest nonsense" anymore than he has to generate "dishonest nonsense".  He is the guy that opens blog sites like it is going out of style.  Does he just want to pontificate his own viewpoints over and over again or does he want to start blog discussions where other viewpoints can be aired?  I would hope it is the latter.  A good debate can be fun and both sides can learn from it (even Andrew).

You have a basic problem here, Ian, which I will point out to you.  You get too emotionally involved with this whole topic, and then you have a hard time controlling your manners and your speech.  I'm sure your Mommy told you that calling people "idiots" is naughty.  Don't get hysterical.  Try to stay rational, unemotional and polite, and you'll get further (in this debate and in the world, in general).

Max

How can anyone have a civil debate with you when you are guilty of dishonesty and scientific malfeasance?

You are pathetic.

In his latest temper tantrum, Ian wrote: "How can anyone have a civil debate with you when you are guilty of dishonesty and scientific malfeasance?
You are pathetic."

Tell me Ian, are you really only 15 years old or are you just acting that way?

Grow up.

Max

Ian F is rather good at making negative and offensive statements, but is devoid of any sensible contribution to the debate.

His refusal to accept scientific data that does not conform with his belief system reminds me of people who still believe that the Grand Canyon was formed about 4,000 years ago in Noah's flood, according to their interpretation of the Bible. This is despite the geological evidence that shows it is actually very old indeed.

You screamed recently to Max Manacker:

"You are dishonest"

I'm mystified by that statement!
Could you please give even one example of dishonesty by Max?
I've read his stuff, and have no idea of where you are coming from.....give me some specifics....please!

GreyFalcon may be on hiatus WRT my earlier post.
In his apparent absence.....any other takers? (like in the wisdoms of Pangolin, Forrester, or lovely Jo, to name but a few)

Following-on from Max's comments, where you, [anyone], can only see black in the temperature trends, one thing that I find ironic is the faith that is still placed in the various regional dendro-proxy reconstructions, including by some hardcore believers in the disgraced manna Graph called Hockey-Stick.  It is necessary in these studies to calibrate the ancient tree-ring growth rates to known modern instrumental data, and it is a tricky decision to know where to go in this calibration, because as Max has pointed out, the decadal trend in T's is far from linear.  What can be said is that whilst the published global temperatures are trending up in recent decades, (If we ignore the recent plateau), tree-ring growth rates are sharply trending DOWN since about 1960.  This is despite that the CO2 levels are increasing which prima facie should result in compound acceleration in growth.  This has been described for the past ten years or so as "The Divergence Problem", and whilst there are I recall some six differing hypotheses either way, there is no resolution.

 You went very quiet and on hiatus when I pointed out to you that when you asserted the Bible according to RealClimate, that galactic cosmic rays have no influence on cloud formation, that contrary-wise CERN is conducting a massive 5-year research programme (CLOUD) with over 50 multi-discipline scientists from respected institutions around the world.  This contrast in both depth of expertise and confidence is a bit like comparing your Mouse with a Moose. No wonder you have gone silent on this!

[Anyone], please start thinking grey, or even white, not black.
Things may not be as bad as you hope they are!

Do you also watch that "Dumbing-Down" FOX NEWS on TV?
BTW, Richard Murdoch is NOT AUSTRALIAN, he changed his citizenship to that of the USA, apparently for commercial reasons

IMHO, he is an evil man, and I'm relieved that he is NOT AUSTRALIAN

"BTW- That tree ring growth increase you predict has been long debunked. Actually after an initial boost in growth due to localized increases in CO2 further growth is limited by acid (carbonic acid) leaching of soil nutrients. Soil nutrient availability is a far more important factor in growth forcing or limitation than CO2 availability. The increase in acid rain due to coal pollutants worldwide leaches nutrients away from roots.

Please try to keep up."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's interesting!  I'm aware of half a dozen contrasting hypthosese but not your latest claim.  I'm genuinly interested and do try to "keep-up", but do not claim infallibillity.

Do you have any references that I might consult?  I'm always eager to learn!

There are MANY possible causes for climate change, NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!
NOT JUST ONE!

Got it yet?

I did some quick searches out there concerning acid leaching of soils, as recommended by Pangolin, and everything I found was conditional on something else.  For instance, in some parts of Eastern Canada, tree growth can be harmed by pollution where there is low SOIL PH.  (Whereas for example; Norway has a bad problem with Salmon productivity losses, but her trees are fine, presumably because of better, more alkaline soils)

I then thought, Oh!  He/she must have been reading something in RealClimate, but to my great surprise I could find nothing relevant there either.

A point to bear in mind is that in most cases the Dendro's (putting aside MBH) pick high latitude/altitude sites that are considered to be pristine and hopefully with a millennially  constant winter snow deposit plus a few etc's.
It would be interesting to know if Pangolin's comments apply to those areas, such as in high Pakistan etc.

At this point, it would be amusing to insert the laughable letter from Hughes (or was it Bradley?) of the MBH hockey-team to Nature journal in July 1998, trying to dismiss "The Divergence Problem", but let's keep this short and ignore the comedy-science.

I remember that a good while ago, Canada was rather irritated by all the pollution it was receiving free from that grand polluter; the USA, and thought to Google that topic.  So it looks like the USA started to take some responsibility in about 1990, but I could only find rhetoric, and no data to measure any progress.  Meanwhile of course, there's a worldwide acceleration in the use of coal-fired energy and road transport, including diesel popularization, etc

But here's the good news:
There is incontrovertible proof in the IPCC 2007 report, in chapter 6 of WG1, that Pangolin is wrong in his/her assertions.  Please go to Fig. 6:10b, that being the infamous spaghetti graph, and you will see that the various alleged 30-year smoothed proxy data sets reach a maximum at around 1950 and then sharply plunge downwards until around 1975, but then what-ho, golly-gosh, they all then sharply reverse upwards, trying to catch-up with the published global average surface T's.

This is despite Pangolin's dreadful acid leaching of the soils slowing down the tree-growth rate.

A more graphic and more WIDELY trumpeted illustration from the various IPCC 2001 reports and releases, based on MBH 99, is similar except that it has a 40-year smoothing of similar corruptness.

Clue to Pangolin:  Re; CORRUPT data:  Try to understand what is 30 or 40-year smoothing, like where does it END in the data set?

I thought the IPCC made it pretty clear that there are other factors that influence the climate. It just happens to be the case that all that carbon that was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago is now being dumped back into the atmosphere in a very short time frame.

Our activities are now one of the forcings.

Still waiting on any correlation even between cosmic rays and clouds. But the fact that you are clinging with such desperation is fairly amusing.

He wrote:
Still waiting on any correlation even between cosmic rays and clouds. But the fact that you are clinging with such desperation is fairly amusing.

Be patient lad, Here is a paste from my Feb 1 post:

Quoting CERN on their 5 (five) year programme:  

"The collaboration comprises an interdisciplinary team from 18 institutes and 9 countries in Europe, the United States and Russia. It brings together atmospheric physicists, solar physicists, and cosmic ray and particle physicists to address a key question in the understanding of clouds and climate change. "The experiment has attracted the leading aerosol, cloud and solar-terrestrial physicists from Europe; Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom are especially strong in this area"

Oh dear, I can hear the collective sigh;  we don't want to hear any good news from CERN

As you point out, the cosmic ray / cloud connection is pure theory (only tested by some simple lab experiments).

The CO2 greenhouse warming is also pure theory (not yet tested by any hard experimental data).

CERN will experimentally test the cosmic ray / cloud theory on a larger scale soon.

Who is going to test the greenhouse warming theory experimentally and when?

Regards,

Max