<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Climate Science and Politics &#187; AGW Consensus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climatepatrol.net/category/english-categories/agw-consensus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climatepatrol.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:43:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Al Gore&#8217;s Convenient Mall of Asia Version</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/06/27/al-gores-convenient-mall-of-asia-version/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/06/27/al-gores-convenient-mall-of-asia-version/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biofuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy and Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Temperature History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Globalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore in Manila]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[An Inconvenient Truth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arroyo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Club of Rome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Rockefeller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Earth in the Balance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Marshall Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming hoax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Himalayan Glaciers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mall of Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noynoy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[population control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Revelle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[save the planet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SMX convention]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=337</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SMX Convention Center, SM Mall of Asia, June 8, 2010. &#8220;Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the Philippines.&#8221; Not all of those posh looking people who paid at least 10% of an ordinary Filipino&#8217;s monthly salary to attend this one-way-conference bothered to stand up on this announcement. The days of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo were counted, and President elect Benigno Simeon &#8220;Noynoy&#8221; Cojuangco Aquino III with his slogan &#8220;Kung walang corrupt walang mahirap&#8221; (If there is no corruption, there is no hardship) was not yet proclaimed officially. There was at least a foretaste of the new hope with five multimedia screens, a team of (Gaia?) worship singers and dancers: &#8220;We are the world&#8230; we can make a difference &#8230; if we just help each other&#8230;&#8221; Many songs that are 30 years old are en vogue in the Philippines. Then along came the opening speaker. SM Prime President Hans Si urged people to minimize their carbon footprint without sacrificing comfort. He knew what he was talking about since he counts as one of the richest people in the Philippines. And when Al Gore eventually started his two hour one-man-show, he praised him and SM Prime repeatedly as a business leader (and main [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/06/27/al-gores-convenient-mall-of-asia-version/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Warming Doesn&#8217;t Add Up</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/05/09/global-warming-doesnt-add-up/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/05/09/global-warming-doesnt-add-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 05:47:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global cooling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean heat loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocean heat uptake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radiative imbalance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Pielke Sr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TOA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2010/05/09/global-warming-doesnt-add-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monckton and Climate Sensitivity: Teacher or Student?</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/08/21/monckton-and-climate-sensitivity-teacher-or-student/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/08/21/monckton-and-climate-sensitivity-teacher-or-student/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:02:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Temperature History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[APS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arthur Smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christopher Monckton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate sensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monckton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=66</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some say that he has become a real climatologist, others &#8211; mainly AGW alarmists &#8211; say that he is not a scientist but a strawman with bad manners. The public critiques of climate skeptic Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount of Benchley, may not always demonstrate the traits of a Gentleman - or even Lord. Well, if you are simply looking for the entertainment value of a debate, I suggest you go directly to the Science and Public Policy Website with it&#8217;s response to Dr. Arthur Smith&#8217;s critique of Christopher Monckton&#8217;s &#8216;Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered&#8217;. For all the others, I like to show how this whole debate regarding the magnitude of that anthropogenic global warming (AGW), as widely attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, fits in with Climatepatrol&#8217;s layman&#8217;s attempt to start to falsify parts of the IPCC view on climate sensitivity in a recent post. For the purpose of a follow-up on said climate review, I am thankful for Monckton&#8217;s newly launched debate on climate sensitivity. I am also thankful for the information given in the critique by Dr. Arthur Smith against Monckton&#8217;s paper, after the first publication of which the APS chief editor hastened to emphazise that &#8221;the following article has not undergone any scientific [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/08/21/monckton-and-climate-sensitivity-teacher-or-student/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Temperature About to Fall Below IPCC Scenarios</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/07/09/global-temperature-about-to-fall-below-ipcc-scenarios/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/07/09/global-temperature-about-to-fall-below-ipcc-scenarios/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2008 22:20:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Temperature History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emission scenarios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ENSO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global temperature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HadCRUT3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPCC scenarios]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pacific decadal oscillation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PDO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SRES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAH]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent post I came up with a 100-year global temperature trend of 1.64°C per century using the temperature history of 5 metrics of the satellite era. With satellite temperature updates of June and by using GISS land-ocean-index instead of &#8220;meteorological stations only&#8221; as in May, this trend is now being reduced to 1.59°C per century. Although this is still consistent with Special Report on Emission Scenarios SRES as used in the two recent reports TAR and AR4 of the IPCC, the slope points towards the lower end of any scenario. First of all, lets have a look at the same global temperature trends. By using a running 4-year mean of the respective monthly temperature anomalies, the intention is to smooth out the effects of ENSO (El Nino &#8211; Southern Oscillation) as a natural variation influencing global temperature from one year to another. The professionals at Realclimate are the ones who have done it right I am sure. But this is not the main objective of the following graph. ENSO is probably the natural variability that is most cited by AGW proponents and the IPCC report is full of it alright. Yet another variable is the effect of two [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/07/09/global-temperature-about-to-fall-below-ipcc-scenarios/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global Temperature 1979 &#8211; May 2008 &#8211; HATCrut3, Giss, NCDC, RSS, UAH</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/06/23/global-temperature-1979-may-2008-hatcrut3-giss-ncdc-rss-uah/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/06/23/global-temperature-1979-may-2008-hatcrut3-giss-ncdc-rss-uah/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Climate Patrol</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Temperature History]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gisstemp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global temperature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global temperature index]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HatCRUT3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NCDC-NOAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RSS-MSU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[temperature 1979-2008May]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAH-MSU]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=68</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The temperature history of the satellite era shows a trend of + 1,64°C per century as of May 2008 when combining five independent data sets. This is rather at the lower end of the IPCC projections and there are many indications that this upward trend will not continue. But for today, I just give you the facts. As promised before, I plotted a superimposed chart combining five different datasets of global temperature history. Please note that for one of them &#8211; GISS-NASA &#8211; I chose the one &#8220;meteorological stations only&#8221;, which means emphasis is given on those weather stations the data whereof are under constant revision, including those on parking lots, near air conditioners and on ships, etc, etc. But this is the domain of expertise of http://climateaudit.org and http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/06/23/global-temperature-1979-may-2008-hatcrut3-giss-ncdc-rss-uah/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global food shortage linked to biofuel use (part I)</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/22/global-food-shortage-linked-to-biofuel-use/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/22/global-food-shortage-linked-to-biofuel-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:46:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biofuel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Food Crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rice shortage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commodity speculation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food shortage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jean Ziegler]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jean Ziegler, Switzerland, the United Nations&#8217; independent expert on the right to food, was right to call for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production in October 2007. Ziegler called their motives legitimate, but said that &#8221;the effect of transforming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of maize, of wheat, of beans, of palm oil, into agricultural fuel is absolutely catastrophic for the hungry people.&#8221; The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added. &#8221;So it&#8217;s a crime against humanity&#8221; to devote agricultural land to biofuel production, Ziegler said at a news conference. &#8221;What has to be stopped is &#8230; the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world,&#8221; he said. As an example, he said, it takes 510 pounds of corn to produce 13 gallons of ethanol. That much corn could feed a child in Zambia or Mexico for a year, he said. Benjamin Chang, a spokesman for the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/22/global-food-shortage-linked-to-biofuel-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>HadCRUT3 Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index 1850-2008</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2008 04:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global temperature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HadCRUT3]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=43</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HatCRUT3 is the global temperature Index of the U.K. Hadley Metoffice. In another post, I will attempt to combine the 3 land-ocean indices of GISStemp, HadCRUT3 and NCDC in one graph with 1900-2000 as the 20th century reference period, because there seems to be a bit of a confusion regarding the different developments of the temperature networks. Here are the temperature anomalies for the 3 surface temperature networks for the first quarter 2008 compared to the 20th century average.                             GISStemp   HatCRUT3  NCDC January                   0.13              0.19           0.20 February                 0.27              0.32           0.38 March                     0.68              0.56           0.70 1st Quarter 2008    0.36              0.36           0.43 The hypothesis of &#8220;the great pacific climate shift&#8221; having occured around 1976-1978, which lead to a big junk of the warming of the eighties, can be read here. In a later post, I like us to also discuss why when looking at the temperature history graphs of the various networks, some graphs make believe that the warming will continue, others don&#8217;t. For a comparison between surface stations and mid tropospheric satelite measurements, see this graph by noaa. The climate research unit informs here that the dataset HatCRUT2 was replaced by HatCRUT3 from January 2006. The old version which will not be updated anymore [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/04/16/hatcrut3-global-land-ocean-temperature-index-1850-2008/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Earth Scientist Speaks Up Against AGW Skeptic Slander</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 04:27:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[against skeptic bashing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW skeptic slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW skepticm earth scientist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fred Singer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stefan Rahmstorf]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=41</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, climatologist at the University of Potsdam, Germany took the risk to justify himself to sceptical commenters of his post &#8220;Ist die Erderwärmung vorbei?&#8221; (is global warming over?) at Wissenslogs (powered by Spektrum der Wissenschaft). For this challenging task (during his &#8220;sparetime&#8221;), this co-author at realclimate.org deserves great respect. However, the following commenters&#8217; speech gets to the heart of global warming scepticism. [Update] For your guidance, here is Rahmstorf&#8217;s controversal claim: How „climate change skeptics“ take us for a ride and fight against effective climate protection policies. [Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf] What happened &#8211; why haven&#8217;t we got anywhere in climate politics those past 15 years? To explain this, all it takes is to switch on your TV (RTL, 11 June; ntv, 7 July; ARD, 9 July 2007). and we see Fred Singer who explains us that climate change is no reason for concern&#8230;Singer explains us the same thing for 15 years, over and over again. It&#8217;s just one little detail that has changed: Until two years ago, Singer stated that there isn&#8217;t such thing as global warming. Satellite data supposedly proof that. Meanwhile, this kind of arguing has become ever so dubious. (Satellites show the same warming as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/24/earth-scientist-speaks-up-against-agw-skeptic-slander/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Klimatologe hinterfragt “schlampiges” wissenschaftliches Arbeiten</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/18/klimatologe-hinterfragt-schlampiges-wissenschaftliches-arbeiten/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/18/klimatologe-hinterfragt-schlampiges-wissenschaftliches-arbeiten/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deutsche Themen zum Klima]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Klimaerwärmung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Klimamodelle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Klimawandel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Klimatologe hinterfragt Konsens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy W. Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schlampige Wissenschaft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=40</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Datenquelle: NOAA NCDC Graphik (transponiert auf 1951-1980-Norm): Climatepatrol Klimatologe Dr. Roy W. Spencer von der &#8216;University of Alabama&#8217; stellt öffentlich und scharfzüngig Fragen zu einem allgemein anerkannten, linearen Aufwärtstrend der Globaltemperatur der vergangenen 30 Jahre, was menschlichen Aktivitäten zugeschrieben wird, und zwar mit einer Wahrscheinlichkeit von 90%. 1) Warum weisen sämtliche der 20+ IPCC-Klimamodelle mehr Sensitivität gegenüber dem totalen Feedback der Wolken auf als in veröffentlichten Schätzungen von Wolken-Feedbacks des Realklimas zu lesen ist (Gregory, J. Climate, 2006)? &#8230; 2) &#8230;und in Bezug auf eben diese auf Beobachtungen beruhenden Schätzungen von (etwas) positiven Wolken-Feedbacks: Woher wissen Sie, dass diese Veränderungen der Wolkenverteilung, welche während Temperaturänderungen beobachtet wurden, tatsächlich &#8220;Feedbacks&#8221; sind? &#8230; 3) &#8230; wir sind uns alle einig, dass sich seit den siebziger Jahren eine starke Erwärmung der globalen Durchschnittstemperatur eingestellt hat. Aber woher nehmen Sie die Gewissheit, dass dies nicht etwa das Resultat einer kleinen, natürlichen Veränderung der Wolkenbedeckung sein kann? Und wie kommt es, dass die dekadische Oszillierung der thermohalinen Zirkulation im Pazifik(Pacific Decadal Oscillation PDO) ausgerechnet im 1977 in einen anderen Modus wechselte, was etwa der Zeit entspricht als die Erwärmung anfing? &#8230; Fakt ist, dass wir schlicht und einfach NICHT wissen, wieviel der vergangenen Erwärmung natürlichen [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/18/klimatologe-hinterfragt-schlampiges-wissenschaftliches-arbeiten/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Climatologist Questions “Sloppy Science”</title>
		<link>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/16/climatologist-questions-sloppy-science/</link>
		<comments>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/16/climatologist-questions-sloppy-science/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 05:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[AGW Consensus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Propaganda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[English Climate Categories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AGW controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change skeptic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cloud feedback]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Roy W. Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy W. Spencer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sloppy science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://climatepatrol.net/?p=39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Climatatologist Dr. Roy W. Spencer from University of Alabama raises tough questions regarding a supposed linear upward trend of global average surface temperature of the past 30 years, which is attributed to human activities with a confidence of 90%. 1) Why are ALL of the 20+ IPCC climate models more sensitive in their total cloud feedback than published estimates of cloud feedbacks in the real climate system (Forster and Gregory, J. Climate, 2006)? &#8230; 2) And regarding those observational estimates of (somewhat) positive cloud feedbacks: How do you know that the cloud changes that have been observed during temperature changes really are &#8220;feedbacks&#8221;? &#8230; 3) &#8230;we all agree that there has been strong global-average warming since the 1970’s. Well, how do you know this wasn’t the result of a small, natural change in cloud cover? Doesn’t it seem like (another) coincidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) just happened to shift to a different mode in 1977, about the time that the warming started? &#8230; The fact is, we DON’T know how much of recent warming is natural, simply because we don’t have good enough global cloud observations back to the 1970’s (and earlier) to measure any long-term changes in cloudiness to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://climatepatrol.net/2008/03/16/climatologist-questions-sloppy-science/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
