The Fix is in for Global Warming Alarmists

PaV: You seem to always want to find something that justifies your position……………..instead of just simply answering questions. Your question was "Why not go back to the 19th century when “warming” began?" In fact, climate scientists not only study the climate back to the 19th century, but back billions of years. PaV: I state that something other than man-made CO2 was responsible, and you start invoking all of the likely reasons why the temperature is slightly going up right now. We pointed to the many natural mechanisms that affect climate, now and in the past. The cooling of the early 18th century, and the subsequent warming, was possibly due to changes in the Sun's intensity. The overall recovery from the ice age is probably due to various changes in the Earth-Sol distance, and of the precession and tilt of the Earth's axis. PaV: If man-made CO2 production is a serious threat to our planet, then one would expect to see that global temperatures would start rising at a rate much greater than before this CO2 production began. That would depend on a number of countervailing influences included in Earth's heat equation. A monotonic increase in temperature is not the expected pattern. http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2011/09/Global-Annual1.png Zachriel

Zachriel: You're not being intellectually honest. I haven't the time to rebut your comments point-by-point, but they all miss the mark. You sort of have a "know-it-all" attitude. That's not helpful. You seem to always want to find something that justifies your position.................instead of just simply answering questions. E.g., that the warming trend we see started in the 1800's---a time well before man-made CO2 was of any consequence---doesn't mean anything to you. I state that something other than man-made CO2 was responsible, and you start invoking all of the likely reasons why the temperature is slightly going up right now. If man-made CO2 production is a serious threat to our planet, then one would expect to see that global temperatures would start rising at a rate much greater than before this CO2 production began. We don't see this. We almost see the opposite, i.e., a very slight decrease from about 1940 to the present (decrease in the rate of rising temperature). This seems to mean nothing to you. It is clear that this simple fact invalidates the global hysteria that corrupt tycoons are using to make their next 100 billion---all at the cost of the poor! Use your head. Don't subscribe to the imposed orthodoxy. PaV

z Not only was 2014 the hottest year instrumentally, but the record occurred during an ENSO-neutral year. ENSO? We don't need no stinking ENSO. velikovskys

bb: Projections thus far have all been wrong. That is incorrect. The Earth's surface continues to warm, primarily the hydrosphere, but the surface as well. Andre: Again why do you even care? We're averse to seeing humanity's natural inheritance squandered. Call it a peccadillo, if you like. Mapou: What difference does a year make? Nine of the ten hottest years have occurred this century. If we remove known sources of variability, then the trend is much more apparent. See Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011: "When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced." http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg That's before we adjust for other artifacts per Karl et al. Andre: Was it not Al Gore that said that all the ice will be melted in the Arctic by 2013? No, he didn't. June is not the maximum melt date, but September. June 7 isn't even summer yet. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig4.2-perovich.gif velikovskys: If essentially flat means constantly getting warmer then you are correct, since 2013 is the 5th hottest year and 2014 is 1st hottest year it does not seem to be decreasing. Not only was 2014 the hottest year instrumentally, but the record occurred during an ENSO-neutral year. A lot of heat has been accumulating in the Pacific Ocean which has yet to be registered in surface temperatures. Zachriel

Andre: Tell me record ice in Antarctica is this due to global warming From your link: "Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). " So by your logic, since the Arctic has lost more than twice the ice compared the the amount the Antarctic has gained ,Climate Change is verified. You bunch of leftist hippies are all anti-science Good argument except for the fact science agrees with my position and pro with your idiotic dogmas that are so far removed from reality that the question has to be posed Which dogmas specifically? Are you being stupid on purpose? Not everyone can be as naturally blessed as you. velikovskys

Mapou: What difference does a year make? We’re talking about running averages here. It makes all the difference, in order to claim a pause the start date must be 1998, not 1999 or 1997. Just pull up a graph. And yes, your lies notwithstanding, temperatures remained essentially flat over that period and are even showing signs of going down If essentially flat means constantly getting warmer then you are correct, since 2013 is the 5th hottest year and 2014 is 1st hottest year it does not seem to be decreasing. Weaving lies and deception again, veli boy? Why lie when the truth serves your purpose? velikovskys

Whoever is the jackass in charge at NOAA should be immediately fired, IMO. Mapou

This whole thing is a fiasco that destroys the public's confidence in government and science. Skeptics are certainly not going to take it lying down. The fight is on. Climate scientists criticize government paper that erases ‘pause’ in warming Quote:

Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years. But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim. “While I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on,” Judith Curry, a climate science professor at Georgia Tech, wrote in a response to the study. And in an interview, Curry told FoxNews.com that that the adjusted data doesn’t match other independent measures of temperature. “The new NOAA dataset disagrees with a UK dataset, which is generally regarded as the gold standard for global sea surface temperature datasets,” she said. “The new dataset also disagrees with ARGO buoys and satellite analyses.” The NOAA paper, produced by a team of researchers led by Tom Karl, director of the agency’s National Climatic Data Center, found most of its new warming trend by adjusting past measurements of sea temperatures. Global ocean temperatures are estimated both by thousands of commercial ships, which record the temperature of the water entering their engines, and by thousands of buoys – floatation devices that sit in the water for years. The buoys tend to get cooler temperature readings than the ships, likely because ships’ engines warm the water. Meanwhile, in recent years, buoys have become increasingly common. The result, Karl says, is that even if the world’s oceans are warming, the unadjusted data may show it not to be warming because more and more buoys are being used instead of ships. So Karl’s team adjusted the buoy data to make them line up with the ship data. They also double-checked their work by making sure that the readjusted buoy readings matched ships’ recordings of nighttime air temperatures. The paper came out last week, and there has not been time for skeptical scientists to independently check the adjustments, but some are questioning it because of how much the adjusted data vary from other independent measurements. First, it disagrees with the readings of more than 3,000 “ARGO buoys,” which are specifically designed to float around the ocean and measure temperature. Some scientists view their data as the most reliable. The ARGO buoy data do not show much warming in surface temperature since they were introduced in 2003. But Karl’s team left them out of their analysis, saying that they have multiple issues, including lack of measurements near the Arctic. In an email, Karl told FoxNews.com that the ARGO buoy readings may be added to his data “if scientific methods can be found to line up these two types of temperatures together … (of course after correcting the systematic offsets) … This is part of the cumulative and progressive scientific process.” Karl’s study also clashes with satellite measurements. Since 1979, NOAA satellites have estimated the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere. They show almost no warming in recent years and closely match the surface data before Karl’s adjustments. The satellite data is compiled by two separate sets of researchers, whose results match each other closely. One team that compiles the data includes Climate Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, both of whom question Karl’s adjusted data. “The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for,” Spencer told FoxNews.com. “We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years,” he said. Karl said satellite data also have issues, including “orbital decay, diurnal sampling, instrument calibration target temperatures and more.” Spencer said he agreed that those are issues, but they are less problematic than using data from thousands of ships and buoys. He added that there are a couple of satellites monitoring temperature at any given time, and that they are used to check each other. Skeptics say there are yet more measurements, including those coming from balloon data, that line up with existing data more than with Karl’s newly adjusted data. They also note that even with Karl’s adjustments, the warming trend he finds over the last 17 years is below what U.N. models had predicted. Some climate scientists applaud Karl’s adjustments and say they debunk the idea that the Earth has stopped warming. “[This] points out just how small and fragile a notion that was,” Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com Asked about the contradiction with satellite data, he said he trusted the new paper. “I trust the process of legitimate scientific peer review that this paper has undergone, as well as the care that its authors bring to their respected work,” he said, adding that, “the faux debate over a so-called ‘hiatus’ has been an unfortunate diversion from meaningful dialogue about how best to address the broadly recognized serious problem of climate change.” But skeptics say Karl’s adjusted data is the outlier that conflicts with everything else. “Color me ‘unconvinced’,” Curry wrote. Maxim Lott can be reached at www.maximlott.comor at maxim.lott@foxnews.com

Mapou

velikovskys Tell me record ice in Antarctica is this due to global warming? http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum If Global warming.... ooops I mean climate change is true why is what we actually observing contradicting all the computer models? http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ Was it not Al Gore that said that all the ice will be melted in the Arctic by 2013? What does the actual evidence say? http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=07&fy=2015&sm=06&sd=07&sy=1980 You bunch of leftist hippies are all anti-science and pro with your idiotic dogmas that are so far removed from reality that the question has to be posed..... Are you being stupid on purpose? Andre

veli:

Mapou: So, we have a rising greenhouse effect where surface temperatures remained flat over the last 15 years, as reported by satellite data and you call that a rising greenhouse effect Actually you are incorrect , since 1999 (15 years) the surface temperatures have not remained flat. Interestingly, picking 1997 as a start date has the same result ,no pause. The phrase you are looking for is ” since 1998? , you have to cherry pick a record hot year for the claim to make sense. Hope this is helpful to your weaving.

What difference does a year make? We're talking about running averages here. And yes, your lies notwithstanding, temperatures remained essentially flat over that period and are even showing signs of going down. Weaving lies and deception again, veli boy? Mapou

Zachriel Again why do you even care? Andre

"The problem is that the projected warming is expect to move rapidly beyond safe levels. " - Projections thus far have all been wrong. Why should I put any stock in politically motivated scary stories? I remember the coming ice age of the '70's. The cause was the same, so were symptoms and results and so was the solution. bb

bb: So the greenhouse effect is a good thing. Life goes on and it’s very good. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be frozen. bb: 1) “Global mean temperature”, which doesn’t affect anything, hasn’t increased for almost 20 years "The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880." https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413 Meanwhile, ocean heat content has continued rising. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png bb: 2) Regional warming has historically been a good thing. (Better crop variety. Better crop yields. More fun in the sun.) Some warming can be a good thing. The problem is that the projected warming is expect to move rapidly beyond safe levels. bb: We don’t contribute much to greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. CO2 contributes a significant amount to Earth's greenhouse effect. Doubling CO2 is expected to raise global temperatures about 2-4°C. bb: Heat is escaping our atmosphere just fine so the minute amount we do contribute doesn’t really make a difference, especially when compared to even a single volcano. That is incorrect. See Gerlach, Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 2011: Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): "Earth’s volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities." PaV: Why not go back to the 19th century when “warming” began? Climate scientists "go back" much further than that. There's an entire field called paleoclimatology that investigates climate change over geological periods. That's one way to estimate climate sensitivity. For instance, see PALAEOSENS Project Members, Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity, Nature 2012: "implies a warming of 2.2–4.8°K per doubling of atmospheric CO2, which agrees with IPCC estimates." PaV: It seems to me that if you have no explanation of why ‘warming’ began in the 1800’s, then this is an explicit admission that there are forces at work other than fossil-fuel emissions; and this should give everyone pause. Causes of historical changes in global mean temperature have been due to changes in solar irradiance, orbital changes, natural changes in atmospheric content, volcanism, continental drift, changes in albedo, even the occasional cosmic impact. What will those crazy climate scientists figure out next! PaV: As to satellite data–from Wikipedia, a source you use–here is what they have to say: You can't determine mean global surface temperature if you can't see through the clouds. You can get valuable regional information, though. PaV: And what were scientists saying in the early 70’s? Yes, ‘global cooling’! Most scientists did not predict global cooling. They knew there were two countervailing influences, aerosols which cool, and greenhouse gases which warm. It was quickly apparent that greenhouse gases would predominate over the long run. Then the environmental movement forced a reduction in aerosols anyway. PaV: Climate change–a term used in concession to the fact that we see more ‘cooling’ than ‘warming’–is a hoax Global warming refers to the increase in overall heat of the Earth's surface (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere). Climate change refers to changes to climate. Zachriel

Zachriel: You want to go back to 1979. Why not go back to the 19th century when "warming" began? Why did the global temperature increase begin in the 1800's? What was its cause? Certainly, it was not "man-made" fossil fuel emissions? It seems to me that if you have no explanation of why 'warming' began in the 1800's, then this is an explicit admission that there are forces at work other than fossil-fuel emissions; and this should give everyone pause. As to satellite data--from Wikipedia, a source you use--here is what they have to say: Satellites may also be used to retrieve surface temperatures in cloud-free conditions, generally via measurement of thermal infrared from AVHRR. Weather satellites have been available to infer sea surface temperature (SST) information since 1967, with the first global composites occurring during 1970. Since 1982, satellites have been increasingly utilized to measure SST and have allowed its spatial and temporal variation to be viewed more fully. For example, changes in SST monitored via satellite have been used to document the progression of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation since the 1970s. Finally, I'm old enough to remember the very cold weather that the Chicago and New York and Boston were facing in the late 50's, and early 60's. What were going through reminds me exactly of those years--you know, how climate is cyclical and all! And what were scientists saying in the early 70's? Yes, 'global cooling'! Climate change--a term used in concession to the fact that we see more 'cooling' than 'warming'--is a hoax. Some call it the biggest scientific hoax in history. I agree. PaV

"Without the greenhouse effect the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ?-18°C rather than the balmy ?+15°C that it is." - So the greenhouse effect is a good thing. Life goes on and it's very good. Here are a couple more things you have against your argument. 1) "Global mean temperature", which doesn't affect anything, hasn't increased for almost 20 years 2) Regional warming has historically been a good thing. (Better crop variety. Better crop yields. More fun in the sun.) We are not Venus rising. We don't contribute much to greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Heat is escaping our atmosphere just fine so the minute amount we do contribute doesn't really make a difference, especially when compared to even a single volcano. We can't control the weather. Warming alarmism is strictly a political movement in search of a scientific backing to give it gravitas. Similar to "Scientific Socialism". Can you see the stage set for confirmation bias? bb

Mapou: So, we have a rising greenhouse effect where surface temperatures remained flat over the last 15 years, as reported by satellite data and you call that a rising greenhouse effect Actually you are incorrect , since 1999 (15 years) the surface temperatures have not remained flat. Interestingly, picking 1997 as a start date has the same result ,no pause. The phrase you are looking for is " since 1998" , you have to cherry pick a record hot year for the claim to make sense. Hope this is helpful to your weaving. velikovskys

Zachriel why do you even care? Andre

mahuna: Water Vapor (aka “clouds”) has a MUCH greater effect on reflecting sunlight and trapping heat than any credible concentration of CO2. And the models IGNORE water vapor. That is incorrect. Indeed, the effect of water vapor is the most important question in the study of global warming. A doubling of CO2 produces about 1°C of direct greenhouse warming. This warming causes the atmosphere to absorb water vapor leading to additional warming. This effect has been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground, Philosophical Magazine 1896. A number of empirical measures indicate that the total effect of a doubling of CO2 will be about 2-4°C, called climate sensitivity. Mapou: So, we have a rising greenhouse effect where surface temperatures remained flat over the last 15 years, as reported by satellite data and you call that a rising greenhouse effect? The surface includes not just the atmosphere, but the hydrosphere and cryosphere. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png bb: 1) If there is a greenhouse effect, it’s negligible. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth's surface would be a chilly ?-18°C rather than the balmy ?+15°C that it is. This can be calculated directly by treating the Earth as a gray body. bb: 2) Global mean surface temperature is a useless concept for all practical purposes beside giving an overview to a segment of historical science for narrative. That's a good point. Global mean temperature is not useless, but doesn't always tell us what we need to know. The rise is global temperature is strongly supported, but how this excess heat will be distributed through the Earth's climate system is chaotic and not known with certainty. That's why so much research is now involved in climate change. Zachriel

BB, "Warming alarmism is strictly a political animal." That's it. That's a device to keep the third world at bay. EugeneS

"Carbon dioxide constitutes about a fourth of the greenhouse effect. Small changes can have a significant effect on global mean surface temperature." 1) If there is a greenhouse effect, it's negligible. Satellite data shows heat is escaping our atmosphere just fine, or differently than predicted by climate models. 2) Global mean surface temperature is a useless concept for all practical purposes beside giving an overview to a segment of historical science for narrative. No one is affected by "global mean temperature". We're all affected by regional climate. We can have a higher global mean while more more ice accumulates at the poles. We also have no idea what the mean should be, as "should" can be relative from one century/decade to the next. Warming alarmism is strictly a political animal. A tick on Malthus' centuries old, and unfounded, paranoia that humanity is going to destroy the planet. We can't change the weather. That's magic. bb

The link from the words "new report" is now redirecting to a report about pythons in the Everglades. Maybe the PC brigade have started bullying tactics again. TimT

Zachriel's demons continue to weave more lies and deception:

Over the period when satellite data has been available, the troposphere has warmed.

So, we have a rising greenhouse effect where surface temperatures remained flat over the last 15 years, as reported by satellite data and you call that a rising greenhouse effect? No wonder the thieves are trying so hard and so blatantly to dirty up the data? All the while mankind was pumping ever more greenhouse gases in the air, which we are told, created the greenhouse effect? Strange greenhouse, you have there, Mr. Weaver. Don't forget: the end days are coming quickly for thee. :-D Mapou

Well, gee. Everyone seems to be having fun. I had a Meteorology class in college in 1972. Computer models of "weather" were brand new. As near as I can tell from descriptions of the current models, the only thing that changed in 43 years is the speed at which the model can produce false results. In 1972, the world was divided into 400 mile squares with the surface features averaged across the square. So, for example, the ENTIRE string of Japanese Islands averages out to "open ocean". Additionally, clouds are REALLY hard to deal with, what with them brewing up and dissipating throughout the day and drifting between squares on current, local winds. So the models IGNORE clouds. And then there are the calculations. A major assumption for many models (because it produces the "right" results) is that the effect of CO2 is linear, that is, if you double the concentration you double the filtering. But it is NOT linear. And Earth in fact NEEDS more CO2 then presently in the atmosphere to feed plants. CO2 is PLANT FOOD. Water Vapor (aka "clouds") has a MUCH greater effect on reflecting sunlight and trapping heat than any credible concentration of CO2. And the models IGNORE water vapor. But Warmism is NOT about Science; it's about MONEY. Huge piles of it, eternally replenished through non-governmental fees and fines. And of course CONTROL: faceless international bureaucrats telling you whether or not you can build a fire in your fireplace next Christmas. See Terry Gilliam's authoritative documentary "Brazil". mahuna

Mapou: So we have an increase in the greenhouse effect caused by an increase in the percentage of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but this increase in the greenhouse effect was not accompanied by an increase in global temperatures as reported by satellite data? Over the period when satellite data has been available, the troposphere has warmed. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7839 Zachriel

Zachriel (the weaver of lies) presses on, as always:

Mapou: It’s yes, the satellite data shows a pause but by some unknowable magic, we have an increasing greenhouse effect? The modern satellite record started in 1979. The trend since then supports increased greenhouse warming. Not only has the troposphere warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled. The latter is an important component of the equation, and shows that the warming trend is not due to causes such as changes in solar irradiance.

So we have an increase in the greenhouse effect caused by an increase in the percentage of human-produced greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but this increase in the greenhouse effect was not accompanied by an increase in global temperatures as reported by satellite data? Enjoy talking from both sides of your mouth much, Mr Weaver? The demons must be in top form today. Next stop: the torments of the end days. LOL Mapou

Stratosphere cooling is affected by low ozone layer http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tango/ Eugen

Mapou: It’s yes, the satellite data shows a pause but by some unknowable magic, we have an increasing greenhouse effect? The modern satellite record started in 1979. The trend since then supports increased greenhouse warming. Not only has the troposphere warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled. The latter is an important component of the equation, and shows that the warming trend is not due to causes such as changes in solar irradiance. Zachriel

Zachriel, the weaver of lies says:

Mapou: What PaV meant is that satellite data show a 15 year pause. Yes. But the trend since 1979 is positive. http://www.carbonbrief.org/med.....00x515.jpg Importantly, satellites also show stratospheric cooling, the signature of an increasing greenhouse effect.

So let us see. It's yes, the satellite data shows a pause but by some unknowable magic, we have an increasing greenhouse effect? Doesn't your deceptive, demon-possessed brain hurt when you spew self-contradicting crap like this in public, Zacky-o? Have you no shame, dude? Mapou

Mapou: What PaV meant is that satellite data show a 15 year pause. Yes. But the trend since 1979 is positive. http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/397084/graph1_600x515.jpg Importantly, satellites also show stratospheric cooling, the signature of an increasing greenhouse effect. Zachriel

Zachriel, the weaver of lies wrote:

PaV: Satellite data is available, and is considered the most reliable. Satellites do not generally measure temperature directly. Satellite observations show that, over the last four decades, the troposphere has warmed, while — crucially — the stratosphere has cooled, the signature of greenhouse warming.

What PaV meant is that satellite data show a 15 year pause. That ship story is just smoke and mirrors, lies and deception. We know how you jackasses work. We're on to you. Mapou

bb: Not with their trace contribution to the amount of a single trace gas in our atmosphere. That is incorrect. Monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are virtually unaffected by infrared energy; consequently, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint. Carbon dioxide constitutes about a fourth of the greenhouse effect. Small changes can have a significant effect on global mean surface temperature. Andre: So you think humans do affect it? We know humans influence the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere. PaV: Satellite data is available, and is considered the most reliable. Satellites do not generally measure temperature directly. Satellite observations show that, over the last four decades, the troposphere has warmed, while — crucially — the stratosphere has cooled, the signature of greenhouse warming. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7839 Zachriel

Zachriel: Satellite data is available, and is considered the most reliable. Why don't they use that? Simple answer: the satellite data doesn't show any warming over the last 16-18 years. Couple that with the reality that in any modeling scenario, the most accurate results will occur up front, in the first few years. Global warming is just some more junk science. It is sad that even particle physics is on the verge of entering this classification via the 'multi-verse' hypothesis. What's at the bottom of all this bad science? Simple: people who won't admit when they're wrong. That's why people who hunger for the truth--like Christians (and Jews)--have historically made for the best scientists, PaV

Zachriel So you think humans do affect it? Why do even care? Andre

"but they do influence the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere." - Not with their trace contribution to the amount of a single trace gas in our atmosphere. Climate science is complicated. The reaction to select climate scientists is political and simplistic. bb

Andre: Do you think 7 000 000 000 people have any influence on the 27 000 000C ball of fire in the sky? No, but they do influence the radiative characteristics of the atmosphere. Zachriel

Zachriel Question for you. Do you think 7 000 000 000 people have any influence on the 27 000 000C ball of fire in the sky? Do you think that said fireball that is 1 000 000 times larger than this planet gives a hoot about CO2? If there is no reason for any of this why do you even care? Andre

Zachriel is defending the global warming con artists and other liars because he and his demons are also master weavers of lies and deception. Birds of a feather. Mapou

"You have to actually look at the report to see if the adjustments are merited." - Maybe so. But given the convenience of the conclusion so close to a global summit and hype so far, I'm more ready to look at the politics to see if the Lysenkoism is merited. Am I wrong to do so? Given the track-record of warming alarmism so far, I say no. bb

Barry Arrington: Hence a blockbuster new report: a new analysis of temperature data since 1998 “adjusts” the numbers and magically finds that there was no plateau after all. You have to actually look at the report to see if the adjustments are merited. They consider four sources of error in the raw data; differences between ship and buoy measurements, the transition from bucket to engine-intake thermometers on ships, new sources of historical surface temperature data; and fixing the underestimate of Arctic coverage. See Karl et al., Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus, Science 2015. Zachriel

In another 50 years, global cooling alarmists will be denying that "global warming" was ever part of the scientific consensus. William J Murray