Note that the statisticians asked to analyze the numbers for a trend were not told what the numbers represented, so couldn't possibly be biased.

AP IMPACT: Statisticians reject global cooling

Ok,
I hate short time frames..
AS I remember when I was YOUNGER, and having 3' of snow every year..and NOW its 3-12".

I also consider WHAT heat does.
It raise the TEMP, so that the Ocean Steams off more water to become Clouds, that COOL the earth...but NOT the upper atmosphere..WHICH would lead to a TYPE of heat convection...And force storms to be worse..
The WHOLE of the world is INTERACTION..
AND that if there was a GENERAL cooling around the world, including the upper atmosphere and the oceans, It would not form as many storms.

Then we have to add that the SUN spots cause interactions, and we are at the LOWEST END of the cycle and starting the NEXT cycle...and that MANY of out storms are cause by (not the sun) Galactic energy that gets threw during a LULL in solar activity..
Fun isnt it..

Clouds are a bigger variable than you think. They increase albedo (reflectivity) causing cooling but at the same time trap heat that has gotten through causing warming. The specific types of clouds are very important in determining the net effect. That said, water vapor that is not clouds, but just humidity is a definite greenhouse gas.

As for your snow, yes, it is almost comical how people (skeptics/deniers) are failing to notice the weather changes that are literally right under their noses, or would be comical if not for the devastation our inaction will cause.

as I said tho..
SHORT TERM sucks...you cant see patterns, and what has happened in the past..
I can be FORE, or against warming/cooling...Until I see a GOOD SNOW...we arent even BACK to 1980 or before.

I agree 100%.

ECA, even during a solar minimum as extreme as this one, activity from the Sun still overwhelms any sort of galactic energy that may strike Earth.  Cosmic ray input is virtually unaffected.

WE DO GET COSMIC RAY BURSTS, mostly during the LOWS of sun activity..which can cause massive storms..

Cosmic ray increase does occur, but it is still not too significant compared with Solar output at times.  There are those who advocate more study for spacecraft, but this should be tied in with solar output. 

The sun is, of course, an interesting factor since nearly all of the heat for our planet comes from there. (There is some residual heat from the formation of the planet as well as some heat from chemical and especially nuclear processes.) Clearly past climate change has been largely a factor of the Milankovich cycles, which I believe include calculations for both proximity to the sun and the sun's cycles. KD, please correct me if my memory is incorrect.

However, I think it is safe to say that we are equally positive that CO2 affects the temperature of the planet. Without our greenhouse gases, most notably CO2, our planet would have a rather cold average surface temperature of -18C, instead of our relatively balmy +15C. These numbers were taken from the climate science text book ‘Is the Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global Warming’ by S. George Philander.

So, to me at least, it seems obvious that our 70% increase in CO2 since the 1800s would have an effect on planetary temperatures. And, that is what we are observing today.

The important thing about the article in question is that many are claiming that since we have not yet topped the temperature of 1998, warming has stopped. However, the statisticians who were given the numbers blind, with no political bias possible, agreed that the trend is still toward higher numbers (i.e. warming, though they didn't know the numbers represented temperatures). The article was solely about how to read a graph not about the science behind the warming trend or possible causes.

Numbers plus conartist skills equals politician.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/future_action.htm


If browsing the site is not on your do list, this doc is a good big picture summary.
Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication

Got fo make one comment. Find nuclear power plants in the plan. The word nuclear is evading my search skills.

Actually, there are two targets I've heard from science and 50% is not one of them. I've heard for years that in order to avoid catastrophe, we must reduce by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 and peak at around 450 ppm. That appears to be the near consensus. However, there is some good science, primarily from James Hansen who has a really annoying habit of being correct, that the absolute target must be 350 ppm, which will be difficult to get to with a current level of 383 ppm. It means we need to reduce so far that we actually begin to reduce the carbon already in the atmosphere.

Here's an organization dedicated toward achieving this goal: http://www.350.org/

Thanks for the link. I am holding on to my conviction that most of the MONEY part of global warming is just more of the same old game made global. The redistribution of wealth by social means.

Back to science: I am Nate Lewis camp. http://nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html  If you have time watch.