And as far as "Warmest on Record" goes, when we have records from different agencies and on different matters dating back 150 years out of 4 Billion, the "warmest on record" is for all intents and purposes worthless.
Hansen has also now declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible (James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 95, pp. 12753-12758, October 1998.)
And the cooling of the last 30 or so years has been measured by satelitte. Ground measures show a slight warming and satelitte show a slight cooling. Which to believe?
And to be clear, i am operating under the guideline that I do NOT believe that humans, especially Americans, are causing the earth to warm. Which is the premise and theory that the envirowacko left is operating under.
His models include the oceans now; check the reference I provided.
And as far as "Warmest on Record" goes, when we have records from different agencies and on different matters dating back 150 years out of 4 Billion, the "warmest on record" is for all intents and purposes worthless.
We can only compare to what we have available. Most of the "warmest on record" reports refer to an existing compilation of weather station records.
Hansen has also now declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible (James E. Hansen, Makiko Sato, et al., "Climate Forcings in the Industrial era," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, vol. 95, pp. 12753-12758, October 1998.)
Yeah, but he keeps trying:
Trends of Measured Climate Forcing Agents
And the cooling of the last 30 or so years has been measured by satelitte. Ground measures show a slight warming and satelitte show a slight cooling. Which to believe?
A recent National Academy of Sciences report (2000) indicated that both trends are probably valid, and that the discrepancy arises from an overestimation of the ability of convective processes to transfer heat from the surface to the mid-troposphere. Because the stratosphere is cooled (or warmed) radiatively and not convectively, data from the same satellites shows a pronounced stratospheric cooling trend -- exactly what would be expected if longwave radiation is being trapped at the surface and prevented from radiating back to space. The observation of stratospheric cooling is one of the strongest validations of the surface warming record. And to be clear, i am operating under the guideline that I do NOT believe that humans, especially Americans, are causing the earth to warm. Which is the premise and theory that the envirowacko left is operating under.
Whereas I, having read a lot of material and having tried to balance both the left and right, have concluded that there are these points of general agreement:
1. The warming that occurred at the beginning of the 20th century, about 1/3 of the total warming observed for the century, was likely due to an increase in solar radiation.
2. The remaining warming signal is most reasonably attributed to greenhouse gas forcing.
3. The likeliest range of warming for the next century is 1.5-2.5 degrees Centigrade. The IPCC upper bounds (4-5.8 C) are not supported by data or modeling.
4. The maximum effect and least economically disadvantageous program to address global warming would improve the efficiency of fossil fuel use and also seek to control methane, remaining CFC sources, and black soot aerosols. The latter of these three should be sold to Third World nations such as India and China on the basis of the improved pulmonary health benefits.