Here is an example of statistical manipulation, the average lifespan has climbed in this century by leaps and bounds, right? Yet, If you take one simple factor out, you see that the average lifespan has declined, and that is Infant mortality. We have made saving babies more effecient, but lifespan has actualy dropped, but because of averages, the total numbers have dropped while the ones who do make it to adulthood live a much shorter life than the statistics suggest.

I suppose that there are falicies in the weather and it is beintg used as a political tool.

They will keep pushing “Global Warming” with limited and skewed data to fit the agenda, and the scientist that go against the grain will continue to lose funding.

Want to know why this is for political gain? go to carbontax.org and read the plan.

A World carbon tax creates a world government, it is that simple. so just agree, do not think for yourself and follow directions and be good little world citizens. Better go with this or tomorrow the sky may be falling!

They added that if the warming continues, we could see glaciers in Chicago within five years.

“The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts say.”

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14724-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-despite-warming.html

Don’t be too hard on him. This is an obligatory requirement placed on all scientists by RC. Whenever you publish a finding which may conflict with the given truth, you are obliged to retract at the end, otherwise you cannot publish. Cf Gallileo, or Dr Jolliffe just recently.

In order to help your devotions, I enclose a copy of the Creed. Shortly, I hope to have a full Climate Change Catechism…

The Climate Change Creed – appointed to be read in laboratories.

I believe in Global Warming,
which will destroy heaven and earth unless we change our ways.
I believe in Al Gore,
Who conceived the Internet
and the hockey-stick graph, born of Professor Mann.
It suffered under McIntyre and McKitrick,
was crucified, disproven, and was buried.
It was cast on the reject pile.
On the third day It rose again.
It was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science,
and is displayed in a prominent position in all IPCC literature.
It will apply again as soon as global temperatures start rising.
I believe in the CO2 tipping point,
the IPCC Assessment Reports,
a CO2 sensitivity figure of over 4 C/W,
the accuracy of GCMS,
an anthropic cause for all climate variation after 1970,
and grants everlasting. AMEN.

C12/C13 ratios are not used for dating. The strata being investigated has to be dated first. The carbon stable isotope ratio is meant to measure the relative level of the isotopes in the stratum and therefore by inference the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time. The carbon stable isotopes are problematic as they are influenced by more than just CO2. I think the paper alludes to this and therefore is calling into doubt the absolute reference of the ratios of the isotopes to CO2 levels.

I think some of the bloggers are getting confused with C14 dating which is only accurate for about 45,000 years. C14 is a radioactive isotope and therefore useful for aging due to its decay rate (assumed to be a constant decay rate).

And, to Pofarmer. No, C12/C13 does not necessarily mean it is an indicator of man-made CO2. You cannot differentiate man-made as opposed to natural CO2 on the basis of carbon stable isotope ratios. It is only meant as an indicator of the concentration of CO2.

The recent temperature estimates (0.7C increase in temperatures for a 40% increase in GHGs since 1850) point to a sensitivity figure of 1.0C to 1.5C per doubling. The deep paleoclimate CO2 and temperature estimates also point to a 1.0C to 1.5C per doubling sensitivity.

Bill, that’s assuming no other factors are involved. I don’t think that’s a safe assumption. It’s not even a safe assumption to think that we’ve had a .7C increase since 1850. The instrumentation doesn’t support it.

We can’t have a long space of time without them dang political sunspots.

OT: spaceweather has a sunspeck, better look before it disappears!

The equatorial speck has vanished (I did see it at SOHO, but it vanished as quickly as it appeared). From the space weather site, there’s a map still showing the equatorial event (SC23?):

http://raben.com/maps/index.html

Also, in the latest image from SOHO, there appears to be a new speck in the southern hemisphere, towards the east – mid-latitudes – and appears to be a SC24 event.

How scientific is this science dude?

I also waited 3 days before saying anything. Last night, I searched google for news on what happened and got nothing. So I wrote you.

I cleaned up the post wording a bit this morning. Thanks for the consideration, keep up the great work.