Kieran and others who have recently commented at this thread may be interested in cosmic rays, the sun and whatever else ...

But Spencer's expertise and interest is in accurately measuring global temperatures. He is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meterorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.

Since the launch of the Aqua Satellite detailed data has also been gathered on the hydrological cycle (including water vapour and cloud evolution) and how it responses to temperature anomalies. Given water vapour is a principle greenhouse gas - this is very relevant work in the context of testing current theories of global warming.

And this is relevant: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Why aren't the ocean's warming?

And from the link:
"But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

"Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

[it can also rain and release water vapour back to earth]

"That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

[of course with the NASA Aqua Satellite we are starting to get a handle on this - on the hydrological cycle and what role it plays]

Kieren,

You lift and image from NOAA and want me to explain it to you? Why don’t you just check out their site more fully? Heck, what’s stopping you from emailing your questions to NOAA itself (their website can be tricky to navigate if you’re new)?

Jenifer,

Now I really think you and the rest of us have lost site of your article; “Carbon Rationing or Freedom” … what was the point you were trying to make anyhow?

To really know where I’m coming from, maybe you should have a peek at this thread (I enter the fray about half way in):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6885&page=0#104400

You point to a media link about what Kevin Trenberth says. He has also said this;

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_8563859

So Jennifer, just to get back on topic; Trenberth’s article seems to be at odds with what you are suggesting in your article… of which I am still trying to figure out.

At the end of the day, whether you believe in AGW or not … it seems the real problem facing the world is ‘unsustainable development’, particularly as it directly relates to burgeoning economic and population growth and the way we use energy.

Q&A you seem in particularly arrogant / patronizing mood .

“Now I really think you and the rest of us have lost site of your article;”

Being one of the “rest of us”, you do not speak for me.

“To really know where I’m coming from, maybe you should have a peek at this thread (I enter the fray about half way in):”

Maybe you should go back to the beginning.

My first post is quite clear and a suited reference for you to catch up with the beginning of the article

Quoting myself

“(from the article) “It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

Exactly, government is there to reflect the will of the electorate,

Unlike Gibo’s offering “world governments to force everyone back onto bicycles. But I think they are too snivelling to do the work.”

A government which has the power to force its electorate onto bicycles will never get elected and any one which tries can be removed at the next election. You might wish to embrace the lifestyle of a Maoist Chinese peasant but it offers little allure for me.

That is not “sniveling”. it is democracy at work.”

To your final paragraph

“At the end of the day, whether you believe in AGW or not … it seems the real problem facing the world is ‘unsustainable development’, particularly as it directly relates to burgeoning economic and population growth and the way we use energy.”

When small minds grab things, they fail to distinguish between causes and effects.

This thread and article is not to do with “unsustainable development” or how it differs to “sustainable development” (effects).

It is not about global warming (effect), as such.

“Economic growth” is not the issue (measure of effect).

You mention population growth, that’s the “cause” of the effects you listed above but I figure its inclusion was more by accident than reason.

finally how we “use energy” (unrelated cause) was not considered in the article either.

You post is well below acceptable standard. Lift your game if you expect to retain anything resembling credibility.

Big mistake to go after Q&A, a poster of modest persona with an immodest wealth of knowledge on this subject.

The personas of Jennifer, Col Rouge and Graham Young are as fragile as Humpty Dumpty and they remain out of Q&A's league on environmental issues.

Therefore, I too will request an answer to the puzzle here where the title of this thread: "Carbon rationing or freedom" requires clarifying. Why does the author avoid debating the subject of this thread?

Should the author be alluding to the capping of carbon emissions in her title, then I advise that responsible companies are already doing that whilst operating at a profit. However, the cartel which Jennifer is representing is resisting all attempts to act responsibly.

Furthermore, rationing carbon, as proven, will not return society to the bicycle era, but provide an opportunity for our ecosystems, trashed by industrial pollution, to remediate themselves.

Governments are now reclaiming and buying out pastoral and agricultural properties, desecrated by industry. Hectares of land will now be off-limits for remediation purposes. Should a referendum have occurred for such decisions Col Rouge? Are these actions undemocratic? I think not!

I welcome Roy Spencer's research on global warming though it will not solve the dire situation of the fossil fuel emissions which have contaminated human health and our ecosystems.

Perhaps now the skeptics' cartel will cease peddling misinformation about those they regard as obstacles to their grand plans?

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

Jennifer, this prawn, Trenberth says it'll .... "send people back to the drawing board". What a laugh. Notice there is no mention of good old sunnyboy out there and what he's up to because that would be blasphemous and that other joker Josh says "it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming" (lol) and it is all in the oceans with some reference to the "weather" phenomenon known as El Nino. Just shows when you have the lame media in your pocket AGWers can say anything and magically it commands "respect". e.g. like on the ABC 7.30 report tonight with this propagandist, deadhead Garnaut.

Q&A, i'm sorry, i thought you were a question and answer fellow, however for me this isn't just lifting an image and going to some "expert" to explain it. It is quite self-explanatory. I tend to like going to the raw data or primary sources ... Also, when you say elsewhere " that CO2 has a comparative life span of 100 years", i say prove it.

Just look at this piccie once again and notice the obvious latitudinal bands and what is happening globally. We are not looking at simply a localised La Nina at all and it isn't some minor weather event of unknown cause. Heck how do you explain Baghdad seeing its first snow in all recorded history? Does it occur to anyone that poor old sunnyboy is, to use the current parlance, guilty and the sinner but hasn't been put on trial yet?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.17.2008.gif

ps I can sense a class action if the government wants to impose a carbon tax based on faulty data and superstitious climate alarm.