John,
What is this fact that you keep repeating that the temperature has not increased (since 1998)?? 2004 was the hottest year on record! (http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=111731). I live in Canberra (Australia) and the trend is for winters to be starting later and summers starting earlier. Temperatures have been well above average (especially at night). I have a cousin in Minneapolis (USA) and she told me that the last two winters there have been the warmest on record!

Water supply here continues to be a problem that just does not go away.

I feel that you are clutching at straws and artificial facts to back up your philosophy that human greed (sorry, economic growth) is the only perfect and rational philosophy and that it could not possibly do any harm. You are wrong John McLean, we are doing harm and the likes of you are making matters worse, causing confusion and time to be wasted. You are a trouble maker and a spoiler.

Lawrence McLean
(Canberra Australia)

Sorry Lawrence, but you and your buddies are way off.

The greenhouse effect is an effect of the atmosphere. Consequently, any enhancement by human activity should show up here, first.

Global warming theory goes something like this – the earth’s surface is heated by incoming solar radiation during the day, and as a consequence, it becomes an emitter of heat as infrared radiation. Some of this heat is absorbed by greenhouse gases in the infrared band, which in turn re-emits it, partially to earth and partially to space. It is the earth-directed infrared radiation that is responsible for the "greenhouse effect", resulting in a warmer surface than would otherwise be the case.

Anthropogenic global warming theory predicates an additional warming of the surface of the earth, over and above the natural GH phenomenon, by radiative forcing from a warmer atmosphere, specifically, the lower troposphere. The problem is that, despite environmental markers at the surface showing evidence of warming since the late 19th century, no warming has been observed in the lower troposphere for as long as measurements have been taken, since 1957 by radiosondes and 1979 by satellite. Both sets of data are the most comprehensive in existence, and are essentially in agreement.

We are expected to believe, by AGW advocates, that an upward trend in surface environmental makers are evidence, per se, of anthropogenic warming, yet the driver, a warmer lower troposphere, is absent. We have the effect but without the cause, and no amount of blustering can alter this inherent absurdity.

Lawrence,

In paragraph 7 of the RedNova it states that 1998 was the hottest on record.

For temperature please see http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/, just above "Answers to Frequently-asked Questions". Click on taveg12v.dat and the average global temperature anomalies will be displayed. (The temperature anomaly is one line, the percentage cover of the earth is the next line.) Down the far right column you will find the average annual value of 0.452 for 2004, 0.474 for 2003 and 2002, and 0.579 for 1998.

For carbon dioxide please see http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm and click on "Digital Data" (near the top). This will show a 1998 annual carbon dioxide level of 366.63 (actual) or 366.58 (fitted to a curve) for 1998. last October it was announced that the increase in 2004 was 2ppmv, taking the level to 377.64 (actual) or 377.61 (fitted) for 2004.

So you see, the world has cooled while carbon dioxide has increased !

I hope you noticed that RedNova talks in Fahrenheit and not Celsius.

Please also disregard their crap about more extreme weather conditions - the statistics show that it is simply not true.

Also, the heatwaves were not from global warming but relatively stationary high pressure cells which are caused by jetstream winds, not temperature, and these upper level winds helped drag warm air from other regions (probably in this case Africa). Temperature is very dependent on wind direction so what do the predictions say about wind direction and strength in future??

cheers

A is A
The lower troposphere is the the term for the air that people live in, what the heck are you saying that there has been no increase? Of course the average temperature has increased!

John McLean
The weather in a chaotic system, however you can still detect shifts in the attractor of a chaotic system. Which is what we are witnessing. Where has Kilimanjaro's ice cap gone? Where is the Arctic ice going? Other readers just check out: http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861402.jpg and http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2486/24861403.jpg
Both of you guys have no intuition, which is what is essential to be able to understand non-linear and/or complex systems.

Other readers please note: that I am a qualified Chemical Engineer, which includes the study of Thermodynamics and Heat transfer and in my opinion the comment by "A is A" to my post is a load of gobbilygook. Mankind is participating in a dangerous experiment. Shifting the attractor of any chaotic sytem results in a very large change in behaviour. Weather is a chaotic system, climate reflects the attractor of the Weather system. I think the climate scientists are right. We add more of a secondary greenhouse gas (Carbon dioxide) the lower atmosphere will get hotter, that is what is meant by shifting an attractor.

I stand by what I said in my first post, and extend it to "A is A". You are both a waste of time. If you had any sense you would realise that by clutching are such straws you are in danger of making serious fools of yourselves. I would be happy to be proven the fool in this issue, but sadly, I suspect it will be you guys. I only wish we did not have to prove it. Fools like you make it so!

Lawrence McLean