Grendel wrote on Jun 7^th, 2009 at 9:53pm:

That sounds almost like a benediction.

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Go for it boof,if you can convince me you are right I'll post your findings on every forum I use.
I'm not holding my breath tho.

Grendel wrote on Jun 12^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Well - partly right. East Antarctica would be the last place on Earth you'd expect to find significant increases in temperature right now, because it's a landmass located on the pole.

Remember my previous post on Continental Drift during the late Ordovician?  The "as predicted by many global climate models" bit is an exaggeration. Most of the new climate models (fourth generation) are better now at polar latitudes than they were in the past.

The Antarctic peninsula however, has shown some of the biggest increases in temperature in the world.  

Remember April this year? The Larsen Iceshelf?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2288

Over the last five years, the shelf has lost a total of 5,700 square kilometers and is now about 40 percent the size of its previous minimum stable extent.

The tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased through the twentieth century. And yet, during that time, global average temperatures rose till about 1940, fell till about 1975, rose again till 1998, and then dropped away again. It is not surprising, then, that despite claims “the science is settled,” thousands of scientists disagree with forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming.
History again provides useful guidance.

We've already covered the very imaginative interpretation of this particular chestnut.

Why would global temperatures rise and fall???

Have a think about it.

While you're thinking about it, take a look at this site. It might just give you a hint. Look carefully of the graph of solar irradiance.

If you're actually going to listen this time, Grendel, I'll even explain how it was derived - but I doubt if you're interested.

Yes - when the "sun" is hot, the temperatures go up. When the "sun" is not and the temperatures still go up - that's the time you need to sit up and take notice.

Why do you think the red curve follows the blue curve so well ?

http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/

Hey - and I'll tell you something else - It's colder at night than it is during the day. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is pretty much the same during day and night, so why do you suppose that might be????

hmmm?

muso wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 1:24pm:



I know that you are not really asking, but if you do it is Sun effect, cloud cover or not some energy makes through.

As to CO2, suppose not much change means that almost every living organism using O2 at night do not exhale that much CO2 to be measurable.

Good news should we hit the complete dust cover for prolonged time when O2 producers would not be able to perform.

I wander how long would oxygen last?
Humans must have more than 16% O2 to be able to live so there is only about 5% of usable Oxygen for us.