Keith P

The last 30 running days of sunspot numbers are higher than at any time in more than three years.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpdir/latest/DSD.txt

Even though 2007, 2008, and 2009 were at the bottom of the solar cycle, all three years were among the top 10 warmest years of all time.

So solar cycle 24 has started, and solar cycles rise more rapidly than they fade. Meanwhile, El Niño has also recently entered a warming phase.

What kind of global temperatures should we expect for 2010?

In a recent answer, I pointed out that even if all anthropogenic greenhouse emissions were to stop immediately, the Earth would continue to warm until its equilibrium temperature was reached. Further, we know that the equilibrium temperature has not yet been reached because of the current imbalance in Earth's radiation budget: we are emitting less radiation than we receive.

I also said that we don't know what the equilibrium temperature is, or how long it will take to get there.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200912...

However, new research just published in Nature Geoscience indicates that the long-term equilibrium sensitivity to CO2 is much higher than the short-term sensitivity, because of the effect of long-term feedbacks in the Earth's climate system.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/a...

The last time CO2 levels were this high, in the Pliocene, the Earth's temperature was 3 to 4° C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Since we have already gained 0.9° C on preindustrial temperatures, are we now looking at an unstoppable long-term rise in global temperatures by another 2 to 3° C, even with zero carbon emissions? And since zero carbon emissions are very likely not going to happen any time soon, what are the long term implications for global temperatures in the 21st and 22nd centuries?

Did they fudge data showing accelerating Antarctic ice loss, using a satellite specifically designed to measure it? If so, did they take their fake data out of the air?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/a...

Is their published raw data (http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/asdp.html) the stuff that's fudged? Or is it the final data products (http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/science_links.html...

Are the Germans in on it too, since the incoming raw satellite data comes into their mission control in Neustrelitz? And how can the Germans manufacture fake raw data in the 24 hours between reception and publication on their servers?

http://www-app2.gfz-potsdam.de/pb1/op/grace//index...

... his results look like?

A recent, paper by Lindzen & Choi, "On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data" -- "has proven with hard data that Global Warming is a myth" (claims one denier), or "shows the “global warming” scare is over" (according to another denier) -- because the result of the paper is a climate sensitivity of 0.5° C for a doubling of CO2.

(http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2...

In doing their study, L&C focused on nine episodes of rapidly warming or cooling sea surface temperatures (SSTs), each of which lasted from 6 to 18 months, and compared them to the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) observed by satellite during those periods.

In other words, their study, by design, is capable of detecting short-term climate feedbacks only, and is incapable of detecting long-term climate feedbacks.

According to Lindzen himself, "simple calculations as well as GCM results suggest response times on the order of decades for positive feedbacks and years or less for negative feedbacks."

So if Lindzen includes short-term negative feedbacks and excludes longer term positive feedbacks, will his climate senstivity result be higher or lower than the actual honest-to-god climate sensitivity?

Sen. Maria Cantwell has proposed a simpler alternative (called CLEAR) to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill (called ACES). Key points:

1. Carbon is emission is capped at the source point rather than the use point: mines, wellheads, and shipping terminals. Thus only a few thousand control points rather than hundreds of thousands.

2. All producers must buy credits, no producer exempt. (Under ACES, as much as 85% exempt.)

3. Seventy five percent of revenues generated returned to legal US residents on a per-capita basis, to offset electric rate hikes.

4. Equivalent tax on carbon-produced imports from countries that do not have a similar system. Import tax eliminated when a country adopts a similar system.

CLEAR is 32 pages long, compared to 1427 pages for ACES.

Your opinions?

In a recent answer, Eric C made this statement regarding the graph of Loehle 2008:

"How is the graph provided by Spencer (which he also provides a link to the new study) any different that the updated one in Loehle's new study? It still does not look like anything like Mann's hockey stick"

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aq.Gs...

Here are two graphs from the National Climatic Data Center showing global land surface temperatures from 1880-2006:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGdealtemX?mon1=1&...

The top graph is daytime highs, and the bottom graph is nighttime lows. Can you tell me why nighttime lows are increasing nearly twice as fast as daytime highs?

The atmosphere of Venus is 97% carbon dioxide (CO2).

Mercury has no atmosphere at all.

The average surface temperature of Mercury is 440° K, with a maximum of 725° K during the day.

Mercury gets 9126.6 W per square meter of energy from the Sun.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mer...

The average surface temperature of Venus is 737° K, with no diurnal variation. So it's hotter than Mercury.

Venus gets only 2613.9 Watts per square meter of energy from the Sun.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ven...

So, if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, why is Venus hotter than Mercury, when it gets less than 1/3 the solar energy that Mercury does?

The stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend since global balloon coverage became available in the 1950's.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.ht...

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_im...

Climatologists explain this by the increased greenhouse effect, which traps more heat at the surface, allowing less heat to escape to the stratosphere.

Since AGW skeptics don't believe increased CO2 is responsible for the warming surface, what mechanism do they propose that can warm the surface AND cool the stratosphere at the same time?

If the current CO2 increase is part of a natural cycle, how do you explain this data?

http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.html

What part of this looks natural to you?

... why is the temperature rising five to ten times faster than any known natural warming? The fastest known natural warming occurs when the Earth comes out of an Ice Age, when the planet typically warms by 4° to 7° C over 5000 years or so, a rate of 0.14° C per century or less. In the past century the planet has warmed by 0.7° C. Is it just an amazing coincidence that this is occurring at exactly the same geological moment as the large-scale burning of fossil fuels?

(And over the last 20 years, the temperature has been rising at an astounding rate of 2° per century. And it's still accelerating.)

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_FAQ...

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts...

The current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is 383 ppmv, higher than at any time in the last 20 million years. Are human activities responsible for this, or have we seen an amazing rise in volcanic activity? What is the theoretical effect of adding this much CO2 to the atmosphere?

No best answer will be awarded to anyone who cites anything other than peer-reviewed science.

CO2 levels are currently 380 ppm and have been rising exponentially since 1945, on pace to double every 100 years. What I'd like to know is:

(1) What will stop this trend?

(2) When will this trend stop?

(3) How high will CO2 levels be then?

(4) When was the last time in geologic history CO2 was that high?

(5) What was the climate like when CO2 was that high?

Please avoid ad hominem attacks and support your answer with citations or links to peer-reviewed scientific literature.

It is often said (particularly by politicians) that tax cuts stimulate job creation and economic growth. How economically sound is this idea? I'm looking for any peer-reviewed academic sources that either support or refute this view. Please supply references.

I can download the install executable fine, but it will not install over the XP standard version.

In the UK, Gatwick airport to Victoria station London.