[JR: But in fact what you just posted shows they didn't say everything you said that did. Try reading it again -- this time more closely.]

A couple of us (Eric and Mike) are co-authors on a paper coming out in Nature this week (Jan. 22, 09). We have already seen misleading interpretations of our results in the popular press and the blogosphere, and so we thought we would nip such speculation in the bud.

1) Our results do not contradict earlier studies suggesting that some regions of Antarctica have cooled. Why? Because those studies were based on shorter records (20-30 years, not 50 years) and because the cooling is limited to the East Antarctic. Our results show this too, as is readily apparent by comparing our results for the full 50 years (1957-2006) with those for 1969-2000 (the dates used in various previous studies), below.

So from 1969 to 2000 studies show cooling.

In our own published work to date (Schneider and Steig, PNAS), we find that the 1940s [edit for clarity: the 1935-1945 decade] were the warmest decade of the 20th century in West Antarctica, due to an exceptionally large warming of the tropical Pacific at that time.

If 1935-1945 is warmest then 1969 was warmer than 1957/8 but not as warm at 1935-1945.

If there is cooling from 1969 to end of century yet 1957/58 has warming till the end of the century, then there was a short period of warming from 1957/58 to 1969 only.
Therefore there was cooling from 1945 to at least 1957/58. From 1957/58 there was warming until 1969. From 1969 to the end of the century there was cooling.

So how is it wrong to point out that the warming took place during the 1957/58 to 1969 period which is only 11 or so years while the remaining time (55-11), 44 years was a cooling trend. So why is cherry picking 1957/58 better than picking 1969 or 1935-45? Both of those show cooling till the end of the century. The author states that 50 years is better than 30 or 20 but using that logic then 55, 63 if you run it out to the present is better than only that is only 50 years.

Now I say again, using the authors own words, what did I get wrong? You’re the one that said I fail science so now you have the authors words, how did I fail?

[JR: Seriously, dude, read what you just posted!]

Are you saying that he did not say that 1935-1945 was the warmest period within the century?

Are you saying the author was wrong to state that the studies starting in 1969 did not show cooling to the end of the century?

Which part is wrong? Which part of my logic was a failure to understand science?

If 1935-1945 is warmest then 1969 was warmer than 1957/8 but not as warm at 1935-1945.

If there is cooling from 1969 to end of century yet 1957/58 has warming till the end of the century, then there was a short period of warming from 1957/58 to 1969 only.

Therefore there was cooling from 1945 to at least 1957/58. From 1957/58 there was warming until 1969. From 1969 to the end of the century there was cooling.

So how is it wrong to point out that the warming took place during the 1957/58 to 1969 period which is only 11 or so years while the remaining time (55-11), 44 years was a cooling trend. So why is cherry picking 1957/58 better than picking 1969 or 1935-45? Both of those show cooling till the end of the century. The author states that 50 years is better than 30 or 20 but using that logic then 55, 63 if you run it out to the present is better than only that is only 50 years.

So how about some facts that I was in error in or that the author of the study was wrong about before you adhom me.

[JR: Please identify what specific claims you are reporting that "the author" supposedly made, with direct quotes and links. You have misstated what he wrote and mixed applies and oranges.]

Maybe the politicians will wake up when Washington, D.C. is under water. Hopefully,?! that will be before agriculture collapses. Any guesses on which happens first? My guess is that agriculture collapses first.

The president’s email address is president@whitehouse.gov, I think.

I hail from the mid-section of New Jersey and it depresses the hell out of me to read your observations on the Pine Barrens. I left NJ in ‘79 but visited on and off until ‘89 but never around fall. I remember back in the 70’s the leaves turning around the last week of September and the first week of October. Can you tell me now when the leaves change their colors?

Rick

I mean the auther himself said that:

1935-1945 was the warmest period
1969-2000 was cooling
1958-2006 was warming

so we can infer from that the temperature curve was cooling from 45 to 58
warmed from 58 to 69
cooled from 69 to 2000
* and this was not mentioned but all studies show cooling from 69 on to present *

45 was warmer than 2000
69 was warmer than 2000
58 was cooler than 2000

if 58 was better to use because it was longer
then 45 is even better because it is even longer than 58

so while the antarctic temp curve fluxs, over all cooling predominated except for a brief warming between 58 and 69.

And on another fun note, anyone notice that the warmest period for the antarctic is the same as the warmest period for the longest rural surface termperature record we have?

[JR: I take it you failed science, but aced "make stuff up." Your statements above are not true, and so your conclusions are not true.]

Good questions. Let me first amend my statement to all new cars will be plug in hybird or EV in twenty years. There is tremendous pent up consumer demand for these vehicles. Note that even in a very slow year, hybrids sold easily, limited only by battery availability.

All the manufacturers are committed to producing these vehicles. Look at other changes over a similar time period in car building. We’ve gone from rear wheel drive to front wheel drive, from points and rotors to electronic ignition. A/C, once a luxury is now standard equipment. Gas prices will continue to fluctuate, increasing the market for high efficiency.

Yes, modernizing the grid is of overriding importance, as noted in my original comment. Efforts in solar and wind are fruitless without it. It is one area where effective government action is necessary and more vital than any regulatory or carbon pricing regime.

You asked:

[Does anyone doubt that in twenty years all new cars will be EV?]

I do….unless you can fill in details on how that transfer to EV (all new cars) will occur and what will be the ‘real’ climate consequences if transmission grid and renewable power storage are not in place…and range problem and battery recycling is regulated, etc. etc.

John McCormick