biffvernon

You mean like these graphs posted by James Annan a few days ago?http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2008/04/...4-year-bet.html There are some things that Google turns up that I trust, James Annan's blog for instance, and others that I treat with more skepticism. One needs to know about one's sources.

It might move things on if you did read the papers. Putting CET, Scottish and global anomaly series into excel isn't going to tell very much about the total ocean-atmospheric system. I've explained why before and provided links to the literature. So do let's move on.

So someone asserts, yet again, that there's been "No warming in last 10 years, no warming for another ten years" without reference to any supportive evidence. I respond by linking to two very new and relevent pieces written by Earth system scientists. Is this the sort of forum where you get beaten up for presenting science?

That's why this thread is called "The Great Global Warming Debate- continued"

But we have not seen "No warming in last 10 years" and the science is not indicating, "no warming for another ten years".This article explains much of the confusion. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/05/the_...ffect_again.php And furthermore: source: http://www.ifm-geomar.de/index.php?id=4192&L=1

Spencer uses his church in Huntsville, Alabama and the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance to promote his anti AGW stance. He also writes on Exxon-mobile sponsored TDS daily, a right wing news website. Had he stuck to the science of detecting microwaves I wouldn't have a problem with him.

Fine, but for the benefit of others who might be misled, Roy Spencer is one of a tiny group of global warming skeptics and is given very short shrift by almost all Earth system scientists. Some of his statements give me the impression that he is a religious nutter. If that offends other religious nutters...c'est la vie.

Yes, I picked the word because it meant what I wanted it to mean. When you said "This prediction is made on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation changing phase. Based on this, they predict roughly a decade of cooler temperatures" you did not go on to say that the authors of the paper were only talking about a decade of cooling and them even more warming would continue, bringing things into line with the previously published IPCC scenarios. Nor did you point out that the cooling only applied to the atmosphere and not to the whole ocean-atmosphere system. These omissions could have misled those who don't know any better so your statement could correctly be described as disingenuous, or 'slightly dishonest' if you prefer.

Ha! Reputable scientist eh? Not amongst Earth System Scientists, he's not. Start here.

So disingenuous. It's a computer model that produces a scenario of cooler atmospheric temperatures than previously expected resulting from a change in ocean current. But there is no suggestion that the total heat of the ocean-atmosphere will cool. Far from it. Atmospheric temperatures rise all the more vigourously after about a decade. It's no good double cherry-picking. You are just looking at the atmosphere and you are just looking at a limited time. Our knowledge of deep water temperatures is so limited that, by the paper's authors' own admission, the modelling results have a high level of uncertainty.

Don't confuse paradigms within science, which sometimes usefully shift, as in Newtonian mechanics towards relativity, and the over-arching paradigms of science and rationality, from which I see no use in shifting.

Not quite. Just because someone supports ID does not mean that everything they say is nonsense. It just means that they do not apply scientific thinking to everything. The difficulty lies in determining when they are acting scientifically and when they are acting as a religious nutter. Fair enough. My mind is pretty closed as to whether the scientific method is our best tool or not. There is, of course, plenty to debate, even argue over, within the scientific paradigm but it is difficult to discuss meaningfully with those outwith science. Discussion on RealClimate is lively at times.

Nuff said.

Best to go to the horse's mouth. Here's James Annan's blog, where he writes about the BBC programme, the bet and it's background. http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

While some folk are still arguing about Erik the Viking's hockey-stick, the real paleoclimatologists have been meeting in Cambridge. There's a commentary about the meeting on RealClimate from Gavin Schmidt. Michael Mann is, of course, one of the RealClimate founders, as well as being one of the world's leading Earth Systems scientists. Anyone whose cv does not approach Mann's should be cautious in their criticism. http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

We made 24 bottles from our vine last autumn.

And continually the global warming deniers fixate on atmospheric temperatures, the froth on the top. Most of the heat powering the Earth's climate resides deep in the oceans, way beyond the reach of sea surface monitors. A pause in the rise of atmospheric temperatures is just what is to be expected in La Nina years.

Of course, and so am I, but the 'salient points' are a lot of nonsense and best ignored.

There's always been a pretty close association of climate deniers and religous fundamentalists. But back to the science, Edward Lorentz, he of the butterfly effect, died last week. RealClimate has a particularly good obituary, that tells much not only about Ed Lorentz's character and work but also about Earth systems science. The following discussion is also worthy of a read. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...lling/#more-555

The disciples of Phil Chapman may not enjoy Tim Lambert's latest contribution. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/th..._science_11.php

Though you modestly admit that you "Don't personally understand", you claim to "think about it logically", and make the assertion "we'd have boiled away into oblivion long ago". Now, is it the professional Earth System scientists who have got it wrong or what?

You're right, it's not that easy. The "runaway" greenhouse effect is more to do with positive feedback, things like less ice means less reflection means more warming mean less ice means..., rather than CO2/temp function, logarithmic or otherwise.

Not in my lifetime either. Do try reading the paper.

The most recent paper by Jim Hansen et al speaks of melting of all ice - maybe you count 75 metres as 'low lying'. Background reading: Jim Hansen et al. April 2008 (3.6mb pdf) and Gavin Schmidt and discussion at RealClimate

Wouldn't like to think you are not aware. The end Permian event saw the extinction of 95% of all fossil forming species. The 'little ice age' was very little if it existed at all. I was born during the '20 broken years' and had a very happy childhood. They seemed fine to me with my family being better off each year. Contrast that to runaway global warming that would put our survival as a species in jeopardy.