BTW, the Arctic sea ice levels stopped shrinking and began growing again on Monday. But the level it's at right now is the lowest it's been since we started tracking this measurement by satellite in 1979.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/09/20/arctic-ice-shrinks-to-all-time-low-data-center-says/#ixzz26zJfJZdC?test=latestnews

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/19/arctic-ice-shrinks
A better report, but even the Fox News post doesn't deny the seriousness of the factual warming. However, NGW remains unable to confirm, and that must mean there's really something to be concerned about. The last of the deniers.

No one ever said the earth wasn't going through a warming phase Lee. How people differ is on what's causing it.

nope. What people? Read the links.

LOL! I forgot, you have all the knowledge.

then present your knowledge, heeheee

This post was about fall, not climate change. I suggest you start your own post about it.

Go read here:
http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/36173-communicating-climate-change-and-other-issues/

With any luck the sun will super nova before Mr. Kellogg starts a blog:)

<BTW, the Arctic sea ice levels stopped shrinking and began growing again on Monday. But the level it's at right now is the lowest it's been since we started tracking this measurement by satellite in 1979.>
That your post? Or a ghost? Or a blind link? Anything important to add? What people? Go read the IPCC report, or visit the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. What's wrong with knowing some history, and knowing it correctly?

What wonderful intelligence. Home schooling worked well for you.

Hey, Lee,

I wonder if maybe YOU could tell us where the missing tropospheric heat is? You know the bubble of heat high in the troposphere that the IPCC's AGW theory says we should be seeing, but aren't? ( ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png ) Kevin Trenberth and I would really like to know, thanks.

Incidentally, Lee, have you calculated the radiative properties of open Arctic water on the Earth's heat balance versus that of ice-covered ocean? I haven't, personally, but neither has the IPCC, so maybe you want to get on that for us?

Oh, and since you mention it, here's a current sea-ice graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

Oh, wait, that one shows Antarctic ice at record HIGHS. Hmm. Wonder how a record low at one pole means global warming, and record highs at the opposite pole are a regional aberration. Maybe you could tell help us out, Lee?

Tell you what, maybe you'd prefer this graph, showing how we're a whole 1 degree F warmer now than we were in the 1850's:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly.png
Compared to the temperature differences between one room of your house and the next it's pretty small, but there it is, plain as day: warming on a global scale. Ta da.

Never mind the current downward trend at the end, probably just a blip....

Global warming is a very complex subject and is not easily discussed. On top of that, it also is a very political issue and therefore I'm not being drawn into any global warming climate discussions. I'll discuss weather all day long if you'd like, but I guess that's not sensational enough for you since you've never wanted to debate that.

Global warming is not that complex. The scientific community has reached a consensus that it is occurring and that it is primarily due to human activity.

Political debate exists because of industry-funded efforts to cloud the issue. This is similar to the early days of the tobacco industry's efforts to discredit scientific studies on its product's negative health impact.

What puzzles me most about the political right wing's obstinacy on the subject is the business opportunity provided by embracing green energy. While our leaders bury their heads in the sand China is leading the world in green energy investment.

It is interesting that the noted scientists Michael J Fox, John Grisham, Geri Halliwell, and Redwine PHD all disagree with global warming science by signing your cited petition.

Sounds like some of you guys need to get a ruler & go behind a tree somewhere to settle your issues. Just sayin

Now, that's funny.

And you see why I didn't want to get into this...

In 2004, Dr. Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of all peer reviewed abstracts on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003. She surveyed the ISI Web of Science database, looking only at peer reviewed, scientific articles.

The survey failed to find a single paper that rejected the consensus position that global warming over the past 50 years is predominantly anthropogenic, i.e. originating in human activity.

Dr. Benny Peiser, a climate change skeptic and social anthropologist (not a climate guy) criticized Dr. Oreskes' study originally but retracted some of his original critique with a letter to Australia's Media Watch:

"I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

In 2007, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conducted the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, citing over 6,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The headline findings of the report were: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", and "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

So you can believe rigorous, peer-reviewed research from thousands of experts or you can believe something called the Oregon Petition.

If you want an actual list of actual scientists that dispute the actual scientific consensus, you can find it on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

There only seems to be about 30 or so, which is less than 30,000.

Here's a picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_science_opinion2.png

By the way, why doesn't the Oregon Petition's web site list any of the alleged signers academic credentials? It just lists names. Makes me skeptical.

Because they are either: fundamentalists who believe God controls climate on a whim, working for carbon producers, or for political reasons refuse, but can't refute the evidence. Those in that last group are conservatives. Pretty simple really. Same folks who used to fight the scientific studies that connect cancer with environmental causes; tobacco, etc.

Right Lee. Again, it's so simple when you explain it. All of these thousands of scientist need to seek your knowledge.

Dave

You can go to http://www.ipcc.ch to see the actual, complete, reports with figures, footnotes, citations, etc. Reports are available in multiple languages including Catalan, Polish, Italian, Croatian, Spanish, Turkish, etc.

In the end-notes of these reports they list authors, year and title of the scholarly publication, title of the article, pages in the publication in which the article appears. As I noted in my previous post these are peer-reviewed, researched publications.

On the other hand the web site for the Oregon Petition provides no information on the alleged signers. It gives no indication if the alleged signers actually exist, what academic or professional credentials they may have, where they live, when they "signed" the petition, if any new research or climatic changes might impact their decision to allegedly sign the petition.

Again, you can believe rigorous, peer-reviewed research from thousands of experts or you can believe something called the Oregon Petition.

If you check your politics at the door, and not your common sense, which do you trust?

Fall begins tomorrow.

<BTW, the Arctic sea ice levels stopped shrinking and began growing again on Monday. But the level it's at right now is the lowest it's been since we started tracking this measurement by satellite in 1979.> And that has to do with fall in what way? Apolitical on this blog only?

Just a passing informative comment Lee. I should have known you'd want to turn it into a pi$$ing contest. You're very full of yourself.

Dave -

A couple of points:

You claim there are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed studies that question "it", but you don't reference or link to any peer-reviewed research.

Zero.

Instead you refer to a web site for a questionable petition with thousands of alleged signers but none that are attributed to actual researchers with actual academic credentials.

Zero.

It makes me think you don't know what a peer-reviewed study actually is.

Finally, if you look at the articles published by the Wikipedia list of scientists who oppose the mainstream assessment of global warming you will see that many of these articles are actually editorials published in periodicals and not peer-reviewed research studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Not if someone pi$$ed in your cereal

Thanks to CJ for linking to a great number of research articles that support scientific consensus on global warming primarily resulting from human activity.

Guys, if you want really good, well thought out climate discussion,s from VERY knowledgeable people, go here. Spend lots of time reading, there is a lot to absorb
http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/forum/18-climate-change/

The science that put weather satellites in orbit is obviously to your liking, the science that makes radar possible is too. But the science that clearly indicates the man made components of global climate change isn't for you. Your link is useless. So is your logic. And so are your insults.

Good thing you don't post there Lee, you'd be banned very quickly. You are insulting many meteorologist, professional forecasters, etc.
Just BECAUSE you think you have all the answers, you don't. Just because others disagree with what you believe the reason to be, doesn't mean they are wrong.

That is a great link I provided. There are topics that look at all aspects of global warming, from the causes, to present changes, to what will happen down the road. There is no bias on the board about climate. Both sides are there.

And this... we all agree the climate is warming, and we know that some component is made made.

Why are you so argumentative?

Let me ask this question: If the meteorologist using the latest knowledge, with all currently available data, with all of the newest technology available, and all the past records for 100+ years back, still can't get a 3-5 day forecast correct sometimes, then how in the world do you expect everyone to agree on exactly what's happening to our climate and why????? Really?

Let me ask you another question Lee, why DON'T you make your own post about global warming? Kristi will get you fixed right up. That way you can get your panties in a wad on your own blog post and not mine.

NGW - I think this explains a lot. When people can argue over the first day of fall, you know you definately can't have a civil discussion with them on politics. LK insults christianity, anything conservative republican and probably kittens if he had the opportunity. I just scroll through anything with his name on it. It is a shame though, that you have to do that. :)
On another note - Yea fall!!

Great day today! A dry cold front should push through later this evening and bring slightly below normal temperatures through the middle of next week. Tomorrow should be great with highs only in the 70's with a nice fall breeze.

I can feel the fall in the air. Back when I was going to school (we didn't start til September), fall was already in the air. One season (of fun and outdoor play without shoes on) was ending and fall represented time to get serious and go to school. Then there was the fall festivalsat night. Great childhood memories.

There's something about the crisp clear air that feels great. Almost time for a fire in the fire pit!

Ahh, and now we've come full circle and we're back on Fall. Happy Fall, everyone. I'm looking forward to some beautiful weather!

Wow, chilly this morning! I hit a low of 43.0º F this morning at 6:36 am and it's still 43.4º F 7:25 am. nice way to start fall!
Expect to warm up to around 76º F later today and then a slow warm-up through the next several days.

The Weather Channel has gotten up this morning and decided that all that talk about a wetter and cooler than normal fall/winter and a moderate to strong el nino isn't gonna happen. I really despise these guys and their "forecasting". http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/late-fall-early-winter-outlook-20120924

I'm not a big fan of the Weather Channel, nor are the vast majority of people that are knowledgeable about the weather. Back when they got started they were actually pretty good though. I tell people to find other sources (like DaculaWeather.com! :-)) for weather.

Anyway... my buddy Larry as similar thoughts, here's what he had to say:
"I agree that the odds are against a +PDO in DJF. However, I'm still giving it a 1 in 3 chance. (As I've been saying) if we can get a +PDO/-NAO combo together with what I expect to be a weak Nino peak (which we already know followed a Nina), the prospects for a cold winter would be much higher than average. (Actually, even a -PDO/-NAO with a weak Nino following a Nina would give us good prospects...cold on average but not as cold as +PDO/-NAO..but with better snowfall prospects than average)."

Nothing has really changed too much.