The latest hypothesis is that the warming has stopped because of AMO. The AMO closely correlates to the Northern temperature stations. The cooling AMO from the 40s to the 70's is reflected in the NH cooling during that time. That is the history of AMO as it is known. Since the AMO will be on the downswing for the next 30 years, so will NH and Arctic temperatures.
Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT being one of the best that deny. Better than that, he actually publishes scads of papers on this very topic and he and other scientists will explain the flaws if you read his papers. They are peer reviewed as well. He is a cool dude too and replied to me when I wrote to him. Spend some thrilling time finding out why the politicians who allege they are true believers don't come up with plans to fix the problem? Where are those dykes to prevent rising oceans? Where are those reservoirs of water for the water shortage? Where are those massive desalinization plants located due to AGW? If they want to blame it on carbon dioxide, why not use the carbon dioxide scrubbers available since 2009?
If president Obama asked congress for money to build CO2 scrubbers, how much do you think they'd allocate?
Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen have a paper with the latest explanation of the hiatus but AMO temperatures closely relate to recorded temperatures of the NH. The Arctic is greatly influenced by AMO.
Those are all well known skeptics and NAS members, Happer's quote was 2012, Lindzen was 2011, Giaever was 2008 and Dyson was 2007 - none of their positions have changed. Please don't make libelous claims about what position I am claiming they support. If you want to have a serious debate and argue actual skeptic positions then please do so, otherwise the strawman arguments are getting tiring. Name one skeptic with a mail-order science degree.
So? Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago (Norwegian Geological Survey) "Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free."
Why don't you link us to the blog where you read this? Are you afraid the sasquatch stories and the Elvis sightings will distract us?
Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis Jiansong Zhou and Ka-Kit Tung
From the abstract Did you realize that that was the conclusion of this paper or did the blog that linked you to it portray it as evidence that global warming was a scam?
Now days a paper will not get published unless they bow to the AGW Gods. The pertinent thing here is the explanation for the hiatus is allegedly 'hiding' now in the Atlantic. What is important to note is the Atlantic has a strong affect on the Arctic and now it is natural variability that is the culprit for no warming.
So, during the past 100 years, please explain the cooling from the 40's to the 70's and the current hiatus.
You really need to read up on the work of Guy Stewart Callendar. Dr. Revelle is not the father of global warming. Starting when? Short memory? View attachment 29585
How about this. We are still recovering from ice ages. Proof of an ice age exists at both poles. Even in high mountains where glaciers are melting, it proves we are recovering form the ice age we are still in and will return to normal for Earth when it warms enough. Earth is naturally warmer than today.
Earth hasn't been naturally warmer than the current global temperature in almost 3 million years, and we've been in an interglacial period for about 10,000 years now. Earth should be cooling, not warming, and polar ice should be growing, not receding.
So you are questioning the source you used? Because apparently, according to the abstract you linked to, the work of the people you held forth as "the latest thinking", those very people have concluded that they have discovered a phenomenon which explains the anomalies in the data, and shows steady consistent warming caused by CO2 for the last 100 years..... I'll bet you didn't actually read what you linked to, because it destroys your argument...
Well that is one person's opinion. I hope we warm more since it will help plants thrive. By those compressed charts like above are a pain to try to make heads or tails from. I posted proof in a topic I called Climate skeptic I believe i called it. Let me add a bit more. If the politicians were actually frightened, they would install enormous sea walls around America to protect the public. They would prepare by making sure the country has plenty of water on hand. They don't think it is serious. It's pure politics. (see my thread on skeptics)
But what you linked to said that CO2 caused a steady increase in temperature over the last 100 years.......
Not even the IPCC subscribes to the 100 year view but to the increase in CO2 from the 50's. If the models are correct, then why can they not hind cast accurately?
Or they might actually do something that would work, like trying to reduce CO2 emissions. But when one party's idea of science is typified by statements like "smoking doesn't cause cancer", "rape rarely results in pregnancy", and "the internet is a series of tubes", expecting action from Congress may be futile.
