OK, but what does "the news" have to do with science?

Especially from an organization that proclaims, "Strong Science Guides Our Work"?

Mike

Thanks for your comment but I am surprised to learn there is any dispute about what I wrote.

#1. Here is the graph of world temperatures: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/uah_march_081.png Are you disputing the peak in temperatures occurred in 1998 or that temperatures have been dropping over the past year?

The story of the cooling oceans:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025 While one can interpret the meaning of the data in various ways, there is zero doubt ocean temperatures are falling.

#8. Not sure what you are disputing. The sun has been very inactive the last year or so. See a live image for yourself: sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

It has been interesting to watch the solar forecasts modified after the fact (!) as demonstrated in this animation: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/solar_cycle_23-24_sunspots.gif
Note that the forecasts kept forecasting too much solar activity compared to what has actually occurred.

As I stated, correlation does equal causation but it is interesting that atmospheric and ocean temperatures have fallen so dramatically during this period of "quiet sun" and further work is clearly needed.

There was a very significant change in NOAA's instrumentation during the 1990's that appears to have introduced a warm bias. There is evidence this is true in a number of other nations. There is so much to cite here that one link will not do it justice but here goes: http://surfacestations.org/ and scroll down to see what climate stations used to look (white Stephenson screens away from buildings, etc.) and what they often look like now. The net warm bias introduced by the installation of MMTS stations is indisputable.

#9. Again, don't know what you believe is incorrect. I am a meteorologist and I can state — without reservation — that many, and perhaps most, meteorologists have serious issues with the IPCC reports and, especially, the contention the science is "settled." But don't take my word for it, here is an excerpt from an email from Eric Berger, science reporter for the Houston Chronicle, to me written just last week: "What I do find interesting is that a large proportion of meteorologists — as opposed to climate scientists — are deeply skeptical of global warming."

At the top of your web page, the words "Strong Science" appear. I am disappointed in your reply that "we think you're wrong about this (and so does most of the world)." Science is not about what people "think" or "believe." It is about facts and about theories that can be proven.

I was motivated to write because I believe that a posting titled: "Global Warming Test: The Real Answers" should have answers that are scientifically accurate.

As a person who considers himself to be an environmentalist, I intend for this information to be helpful. I hope that it has been.

Mike

#1. The earth's temperature is NOT increasing. World air temperatures peaked in 1998. The more important measure, ocean temperatures, have been falling for four years.

#8. "But natural factors like these have not contributed much to today’s warming trend." While correlation does not prove causation, there is increasing evidence that solar trends, combined with a change in instrumentation for measuring surface temperature, caused the warming of the 1990's The sun has become quite inactive recently and temperatures have correspondingly dropped.

#9. It may be a "consensus" of "scientists" believes dramatic action must be taken but it is clear there is no consensus among meteorologists, the scientists that understand the most about weather and atmosphere. Many meteorologists are deeply skeptical of the IPCC's case for AGW.

For an interesting view on the results of global warming, see this post.

Warming in the western US will be 50% greater