In article , says...

In article .com,
"Roger Coppock" wrote:

WOW! Steve Schulin mined another quote. WOW!

All peer-reviewed published models predict warming in
response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

[cut]

What more is needed for policy? See recent statements
by the NAS, AAAS, AGU, Royal Society, . . .

I agree that these are worth reading. For example the blue-ribbon panel
report often called the NAS Report from June 2001:

"Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability
inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time
histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a
causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
and the observed climate changes during the 20th Century cannot be
unequivocally established. The fact that the magnitude of the observed
warming is large in comparison to natural variability as simulated in
climate models is suggestive of such a linkage, but it does not
constitute proof of one because the model simulations could be deficient
in natural variability on the decadal to century time scale."

This excerpt is from p. 17 of the report. The National Academy of
Sciences has made a version freely available for online reading at
http://books.nap.edu/openbook/030907...tml/index.html -- And for
those who still have an open mind about the science, I urge you to read
the body of this report before reading the summary. Then read the
summary and see if you think the summary actually summarizes (and even
draws all its material) from the report.

What about the previous paragraph on page 17?

"Although warming at Earth's surface has been quite pronounced during the
past few decades, satellite measurements beginning in 1979 indicate
relatively little warming of air temperature in the troposphere. The
committee concurs with the findings of a recent National Research Council
report, 1 which concluded that the observed difference between surface and
tropospheric temperature trends during the past 20 years is probably real,
as well as its cautionary statement to the effect that temperature trends
based on such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end
points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the
climate system. The finding that surface and troposphere temperature
trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a
decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of
the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the
atmosphere."

Back in 2000, the MSU results were not reporting any warming to speak of, thus
that paragraph and the subsequent one were reasonable .Now that S & C have
another corrected data set and are reporting about 0.12 deg C/dec warming,
where does that leave all you anti-AGW guys? Recall too that the other
analytical results indicate an even greater rate of warming.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------