MENU

Social Channels

SEARCH ARCHIVE


Additional Options
Topic

Date Range

Receive a Daily or Weekly summary of the most important articles direct to your inbox, just enter your email below:

Puffy clouds and blue sky viewed from a commercial jet Credit: H. Mark Weidman Photography / Alamy Stock Photo
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
30 June 2017 6:38

Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

Zeke Hausfather

Zeke Hausfather

06.30.17
Zeke Hausfather

Zeke Hausfather

30.06.2017 | 6:38am
Global temperatureMajor correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998

A new paper published in the Journal of Climate reveals that the lower part of the Earth’s atmosphere has warmed much faster since 1979 than scientists relying on satellite data had previously thought.

Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), based in California, have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.

After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface. This new correction to the RSS data substantially undermines that argument. The new data actually shows more warming than has been observed on the surface, though still slightly less than projected in most climate models.

Produced by Carbon Brief using data from RSS.

Both the old record, version 3 in grey, and new record, version 4 in red, are shown in the figure above, along with the difference between the two, in black. The trends since 1998 for both are shown by dashed lines.

Most of the difference between the old and new record occurs after the year 2000. While the old record showed relatively little warming during the oft-debated post-1998 “hiatus” period, the new record shows warming continuing unabated through to present. Similarly, while the old RSS v3 record showed 2016 only barely edging out 1998 as the warmest year in the satellite record, the new v4 record shows 2016 as exceeding 1998 by a large margin.

Produced by Carbon Brief using data from RSS and NASA.

The figure above shows a comparison between the new RSS record and the global surface temperature record produced by NASA. RSS v4 shows about 5% more warming than the NASA record since 1979, when satellite observations began.

Challenge of satellite-based temperatures

Satellites have been used to measure the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere since the late 1970s. While the first global temperature records from satellites were assembled in the early 1990s, they have gone through multiple major revisions over the years, as researchers discovered and corrected various issues in the dataset caused by changing satellites, instrument types and flyover times.

A total of 15 different satellites have been used to measure atmospheric temperatures since 1979, with around two satellites actively measuring at any given time. Two different groups, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) produce global TLT records that are widely used, with RSS originally developing their record in response to issues they identified in the UAH group’s work.

As these satellites circle the Earth, their orbits slowly decay over time due to drag from the upper atmosphere. While the satellites are designed to fly over the same spot on the Earth at the same time every day – a precondition to accurately estimating changes in temperatures over time – this orbital decay causes their flyover time to change. The figure below shows the local time that each different satellite flies over the equator and how they have changed over the lifetime of the satellite.

Figure 2 from Mears and Wentz 2017. For more information on satellites used by climate scientists, see this 2016 infographic produced by Carbon Brief.

Some satellites have fairly large orbital drifts, going from measuring temperatures at 2pm to 6pm or 8pm. Since the temperature changes since 1979 are on the order of 0.6C or so, it is relatively easy for bias, due to changing observation times, to swamp the underlying climate signal.

Changes in the new RSS record

The new RSS v4 TLT record makes a number of changes to the time of observation correction, as well as corrections for the change in instruments that measure temperature from microwave sounding units (MSU) to advanced microwave sounding units (AMSU) sensors, which occurred around the year 2000.

To account for changes in observation times, the RSS group used a number of different approaches and models to try and estimate what the temperature would have been if the measurement time remained constant. This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments.

Depending on the time of the observation correction approach chosen, the resulting temperature trends between 1979 and 2016 ranged from as low as 0.13C per decade to as high as 0.22C per decade. The RSS group ultimately decided that the most reasonable set of parameters give a temperature trend of 0.17C.

The RSS group also used the presence of multiple satellites in recent years to test for “odd man out” behaviours, when three or more satellites are available and one differs substantially from the others. They decided not to use NOAA-18 used prior to 2009 because of this. AQUA was also not used after 2009, and NOAA-15 was excluded after 2011. This choice increased the 1979-2016 temperature trend by around 7% compared to leaving in satellites whose readings were identified as anomalous.

Finally, the RSS group found differences between MSU and AMSU sensor readings caused by spurious calibration drift in either NOAA-14 or NOAA-15 satellites. They tested using only MSU data or only AMSU data during the period of overlap, but decided that it was best to combine the two. Using only MSU data during the 1999-2003 overlap period would have resulted in 4% more warming, while using only AMSU data would have resulted in 6% less warming.

In an interview with Carbon Brief, Dr Carl Mears, a co-author of the paper and senior research scientist at RSS, explained the main changes between the v3 and v4 TLT products:

In version 3 we overcorrected for the diurnal cycle in NOAA-15. NOAA-15 starts at 7:30pm and drifts to 4:30pm, so it has artificial warming, and what we took out was too big. Other big differences are removing AQUA and NOAA-15, which appeared to have an evolving bias based on comparisons to other satellites, especially over oceans where we don’t expect diurnal cycle problems to be big.

Comparisons to other satellite records

Large differences remain between groups estimating lower tropospheric temperatures from the same underlying MSU satellite data. If anything, they have diverged more in recent years. RSS shows considerably more warming in the change from version 3 to the new version 4, while UAH shows much less warming in their version 6 released last year than the prior version 5.

Produced by Carbon Brief using data from RSS and UAH.

These divergences suggest that there is still a lot of uncertainty surrounding satellite temperature records that needs to be resolved, as the range of reasonable assumptions for corrections can lead to large differences in results.

While the new RSS v4 record shows about 5% more warming than surface records since 1979, this behavior would to some extent be expected. Climate models on average project around 18% amplification over the 1979-2016 period, though this value ranges from as low as 6% to as high as 40% in individual climate models. Even with these new corrections, there is evidence that the rate of warming of the troposphere is a bit lower than expected by climate models in recent years.

Surface temperature records, on the other hand, all tend to agree quite closely with each other, despite different groups using different datasets. Unlike the satellite temperature record, where only a few satellites are measuring temperatures at any given point of time, there is a large amount of redundancy in surface temperature observations, with multiple independent sets of data producing consistent results. Therefore, it is not too surprising that corrections to problems with satellite data would move them closer to surface records.

As Mears tells Carbon Brief:

By correctly accounting for the changes in satellite measurement times, the new satellite data are in better agreement with the surface data.

Carbon Brief has contacted Dr John Christy at UAH, but he says he is currently at a conference and unable to comment at present. This article will be updated should he provide any comment.

Update, 4 July 2017: Carl Mears has added an FAQ on the RSS website that discusses the paper in much more detail:  http://www.remss.com/blog/faq-about-v40-tlt-update

Sharelines from this story
  • Major correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998
  • Marco

    Is that comparison with the NASA surface record corrected for the different surface coverage?

  • Tom

    This is a little pernickerty but since we’re talking about data, I’ll say it. 140% faster is not the same as 2.4 times faster. 140% is 2.4 times the speed. (It’s 1.4 times faster.)

    140% faster is an addition to the original speed: y + 140%*y
    2.4 times the speed is a multiplication: 2.4*y
    Both come out the same, at 2.4y

    2.4 times faster is an addition again:
    y + 2.4y = 3.4y.

    • Zeke Hausfather

      Thanks for the heads up, I noticed as well that the wording was a tad confusing. Its been changed to: 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger)

      I tend to find while folks easily understand “50% larger”, when you say “150% larger” they can get confused as to if you mean 1.5 or 2.5x the size, hence the additional number there.

  • Dave Andrews

    There was a 50/50 chance that some of the original readings could have been too cold or too hot. But there was a 100% chance the revisions would be upward. That’s how climate science works.

    • Erin

      Well duh. It is global warming after all.

      • Andy G

        Warming by “Adjustment™”

        • cabc

          Cooling by adjustment in UAH

          • Andy G

            YAWN. !

    • cabc

      UAH is adjusted downward. Any issues with that?

    • Ceist Celt

      Your comment makes no sense at all. Why would there be a “50/50 chance” ? Do you think half the satellites are ‘rising’ in their orbits while other half are decaying?

    • Re: “But there was a 100% chance the revisions would be upward. That’s how climate science works.”

      Nope. See:
      Figure 10 on page 80: “Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy”
      http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1318&context=usdeptcommercepub

      That source clearly shows that homogenization does not always increase the temperature trend. Here’s another example of this:
      “Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States”

      And here’s UAH adjusting their warming trend down, again illustrating the point that revisions/homogenization do not always augment warming trends:
      “UAH version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results”

      Yet here you are, claiming otherwise, while failing to provide a shred of evidence for your claims. Why do you make up false claims? Why do so many people on your side do that? Do most people on your side have any genuine interest in learning about the topics you discuss?Or is your side content to make up whatever nonsense suits your ideology?

  • Cally

    These figures are meaningless. We need to look at a bigger picture, one that goes further back in time.

    • James Owens

      You can combine the satellite data back to 1979 with the temperature datasets that go back to 1850-1880 with the paleoclimate data that go back to 15,000 years before present. They are coherent and consistent in showing how dramatic and unprecedented the recent AGW has been.

      • Gonzo

        Ah no you can’t. You can’t take a high resolution data and combine it with low resolution data. Apples and oranges. Though climate truthers “believe” you can.

        • James Owens

          No problem, Gonzo. Only actual issue is to be sure the uncertainty bands of each type of data are included for the particular data.

        • Buzz Fledderjohn

          The resolution of the data doesn’t mean you can’t compare the data. That’s a stupid comment.

          • Gonzo

            What are the error bars on low resolution data?

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            You absolutely CAN compare data that has different error ranges. You also have to understand that much of the ice core data is actually very accurate. And those ice cores are used to validate other data.

          • Ceist Celt

            It’s a comment mindlessly parroted from junkscience conspiracy blogs.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            I’m perpetually amazed that people like this actually exist.

        • Ceist Celt

          truther
          ˈtrü-thər
          noun US informal
          a person who doubts the generally accepted account of an event, believing that an official conspiracy exists to conceal the true explanation; a conspiracy theorist.
          “she denied evolution, AIDS/HIV, and was a 9/11 truther”

          Wouldn’t it be more correct to label yourself as a ‘climate truther’?

  • James Owens

    The emotional issue here is that many wanted to make the satellite data their “gold standard” because it previously showed less warming and so could be used to dispute or diminish climate change.
    Much of the attachment was based on the misconception that 1) satellite data were fully understood so that the microwave emissions could be converted to a temperature proxy AND that 2) the troposphere and stratosphere sections where data were presented (e.g., TLT) were really mathematical weighting functions encompassing rather large sections of the atmosphere. In this regard, changes in the weighting function to reduce the stratospheric contribution (which is cooling) also results in a change in warming
    So other recent papers that are part of this controversy as things get sorted out:
    Santer et al Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data J Climate 30:373-392 2017
    Santer et al Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades Sciene Adv vol7 scia2336 2017

    • CB

      “The emotional issue here is that many wanted to make the satellite data their “gold standard””

      lol!

      Climate Deniers don’t care about satellite data, and don’t have any standards.

      The emotional response stems from a desire to not be responsible for the warming that’s occurring, and one way they try to avoid that responsibility is to pretend the warming isn’t occurring.

      …but it is occurring.

      …and they are causing it.

      No amount of twisting and turning will take from them that responsibility.

      “The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses.”

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/global_warming_101

      • poonzilla

        And the answer to that is to ship the manufacture of “clean energy” production such as solar cells and the batteries for your Prius to China where they have much stricter emissions standards for the toxic chemicals required than we do. And as we all know the toxic crap that gets discharged there doesn’t go into the same atmosphere as we have here.

  • JustAnotherPoster

    Data in the past cooled and recent changes adjusted “up words” to promote the Climate change narrative. I’m Shocked i tell thee. Shocked. Ahem

    • Buzz Fledderjohn

      And were you equally “shocked” when UAH revised their data to show less warming?

      • Ceist Celt

        And no mention of why it took Spencer and Christie almost 18 months AFTER publicly releasing their UAH version 6.x for them to publish a paper on their revisions.
        Mears and Wentz from RSS? Published their papers BEFORE releasing revisions to datasets.

        And don’t forget it was Mears and Wentz from RSS who have corrected Spencer and Christie’s mistakes in the past.
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climate-data.html

  • mrdavidjohnson

    No, not all of the land temp records agree closely, GISS is quite different from hadcrut etc

    • cabc

      A quick glance at surface temperature comparisons shows that they do. Are you looking at something different

      • Ceist Celt

        He’s probably looking at something he found on a junkscience conspiracy blog.

    • Zeke Hausfather

      Actually since 1970 the surface records are pretty indistinguishable: https://s13.postimg.org/v3hka8y07/global_temps_1970-2016.png

    • James Owens

      David – The various data sets UK, NOAA, NASA, Japan, Berkeley Earth, etc. are usually expressed as anomalies (changes) from a particular baseline average. And these baselines differ – say 1901-2000 average in one case and 1950-1990 in another. So the anomalies or departure from the average may seem different. However, if you use the same baseline, you get VERY close agreement. Zeke in his comment just below – has a link to a figure where the baselines are the same.

  • CheshireRed

    I’m gonna try ‘revising’ the balance showing in my bank account. Every issue resolved with the push of a button; what’s not to like?

    • jhoptoad

      That would be far more amusing if you could actually show that there’s anything wrong with the corrections.

    • Buzz Fledderjohn

      Honest question: Do you think the adjustments are unfair for some reason? Did you think the UAH was unfair when it revised their data downward?

    • Ben Johannson

      Banks revise balances all the time when data are in error. So why aren’t scientists allowed to?

  • tarajunky

    When historic surface temperatures didn’t show enough warming, the past was cooled so that the present could be brought up closer to the models.

    When heat polluted ship intake readings didn’t match sea surface temperatures from the gold-standard ARGO bouys, the ARGO bouys were brought up in temperature to more closely match the ship intake readings and the models.

    When the sea level gauges around the world didn’t show enough rise, satellites were used to calculate a different rate, with an upward isostatic adjustment applied to bring it closer to the models.

    When RSS didn’t match the surface temperatures, RSS was brought up to more closely match the higher readings and the models.

    All these adjustments, all citing models, all bringing temperatures higher. They can use models all day long and apply adjustments all day long, but like in the case of sea level the oceans aren’t coming up any faster now than they were 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or back during the Civil War. They can model and adjust all they want, but they can’t make the ocean rise any faster, they can’t turn snow into a distant memory, they can’t make all the old temperature records go away. And that’s why so many people still won’t buy what they’re trying to sell.

    • Buzz Fledderjohn

      Actually, in the surface temperature record, the past was “warmed.” The adjustments made for buckets vs ship sensors meant readings from the past had to be warmer, making the over all trend less than it would be with just raw data.

      https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual.png

    • Buzz Fledderjohn

      “And that’s why so many people still won’t buy what they’re trying to sell.”

      What a bizarre comment. No one is trying to “sell” anything. Science is merely improving its data and methods, and that has NOT always resulted in what you’re describing. Sometimes it’s the opposite. If you took the time to actually read any of the published research you might see this.

    • Can you offer something more than baseless, paranoid conspiracy theories? I could use your same of flawed reasoning to claim there’s a scientific conspiracy to fudge data to show that smoking causes cancer, HIV causes AIDS, and Earth is round. Why are all those scientists homogenization satellite measurements of Earth’s shape?!!!

      Re: “When historic surface temperatures didn’t show enough warming, the past was cooled so that the present could be brought up closer to the models.”

      Any evidence for that claim? No, Tony Heller’s (aka Steven Goddard’s) inane ramblings don’t count. I want actual scientific evidence.

      Re: “When heat polluted ship intake readings didn’t match sea surface temperatures from the gold-standard ARGO bouys, the ARGO bouys were brought up in temperature to more closely match the ship intake readings and the models.”

      Any evidence for that claim? Because last I checked, the Argo data supported the homogenization done by Karl et al. in the shift from ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4. See:
      Figures 1 and S2 of: “Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records”

      Re: “When RSS didn’t match the surface temperatures, RSS was brought up to more closely match the higher readings and the models.”

      One wouldn’t expect RSS TLT to match the surface, since the surface is not the lower troposphere. Instead, the average RSS TLT warming should be greater than the surface warming, as per tropospheric amplification. And it is. Same for the RSS TMT, the NOAA TMT, and the UW TMT being greater than surface warming. The UAH TMT is the last remaining outlier. That’s shown here:
      Table 4: “Removing diurnal cycle contamination in satellite-derived tropospheric temperatures: understanding tropical tropospheric trend discrepancies”

      And there’s another satellite record with greater tropospheric warming than surface warming:
      “Temperature trends at the surface and in the troposphere”

      And most radiosonde analyses show the same thing:
      Figure 2c: “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends”
      Figure 3 and table 1: “Reexamining the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models versus radiosonde observations”

      And most reanalyses show the same thing:
      Figure 7: “Detection and analysis of an amplified warming of the Sahara Desert”
      Figure 4: “Influence of tropical tropopause layer cooling on Atlantic hurricane activity”

      And the tropical precipitation patterns imply the same thing:
      “Changes in the sea surface temperature threshold for tropical convection”

      And the paleoclimate records imply the same thing:
      “The tropical lapse rate steepened during the Last Glacial Maximum”

      You see all these converging lines of evidence supporting the same conclusion? That’s the sort of stuff you learn about when you read scientific research, as opposed to making up baseless conspiracy theories (like you’re doing). You assume that this is just a matter of RSS being forced to agree with the surface, when it’s actually RSS now fitting in with the preponderance of the evidence.

      Re: “And that’s why so many people still won’t buy what they’re trying to sell.”

      No. The reason is the same reason why there are so many flat-earthers, young Earth creationists, AIDS denialists, anti-vaxxers, etc,: because many people would rather accept paranoid conspiracy theories, than accept the ideologically-inconvenient scientific evidence.

      • Gonzo

        [Any evidence for that claim? No, Tony Heller’s (aka Steven Goddard’s)
        inane ramblings don’t count. I want actual scientific evidence.] Funny. Heller mostly uses NASA et al data for his claims. It seems the internet time machine and older IPCC data are inconvenient to you truthers. It’s probably statistically impossible for EVERY data adjustment to lower past temperatures and raise current temperatures. But then again one lonely tree in Yamal is the best darn treemometer ever.

        • jack dale

          The hockey stick has been reproduced at least 38 times using different data sets and different methodologies by different researchers.

          Judith Curry has called Heller’s analysis “bogus” and “highly problematic”.

          • Gonzo

            What could go wrong with tacky on high resolution data on to low resolution data? And Judith Curry’s opinion has nothing to do with what I stated. The fact is Mann’s data came down to ONE tree. #11. Deal with it.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            No, Mann’s data did NOT come down to one tree. It was a multiproxy study.
            Your statement is absurd on every level. As Jack stated, his research has been replicated numerous times. That is the very definition of robust results. There are NO millennial reconstructions that produce anything other than a hockey stick shape. Zero!

          • Gonzo

            My bad. It was YAD06. The only tree that had the hokey stick profile.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            Still a stupid claim.

            You’re essentially stating that Mann was able to use ONE TREE to project global temperature in a way that would be proven accurate by dozens of subsequent research projects.

          • Gonzo
          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            (head desk)

          • Gonzo

            I know. You truthers have a hard time with your own data.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            You must think Mike Mann to be a complete genius if you think he can use one tree to predict what all subsequent research would show to be true.

          • IskurBlast

            Any attempt to create a temperature reconstruction will tend towards a hockey stick.

            Take any set of red noise data. Now select all series that correlate with the present temperature trend. Now average those series. What do you get? A hockey stick. The hockey stick is ingrained int he method itself.

            This kind of proxy reconstruction is not really meant to be done to back fill and entire record. Its better used for infilling of gaps so your is bounded. You learn this as part of any basic masters level statistics class.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            El Wrong-o!

            It was proven that McIntyre and Mckitrick improperly processed their red noise data and it retained the underlying signal. Do try keeping up with issues that are a decade old now.

            https://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            You mean “truthers” like every single prestigious scientific organization on the planet? Like, nearly every scientist who actively does research on climate related issues?

          • Gonzo

            tik tik tik tik Oh now you’re on to the “appeal to authority” bit. So predictable.

          • jack dale

            You do not understand “appeals to authority” – so predictable

            An appeal to authority is valid when:
            The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
            The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
            There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
            The person in question is not significantly biased.
            The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
            The authority in question must be identified.

          • jhoptoad

            You do not understand “appeals to authority”

            I’m still waiting for the first “skeptic” who does. Hope springs eternal…

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            Appeal to people who actually know what they’re talking about?

            In your alternate reality it seems that knowledge and expertise are always wrong.

          • Ceist Celt

            An “appeal to authority” fallacy is only a fallacy if it’s an appeal to FALSE authority. Like the pseudoscience blogs you yourself appeal to.

          • IskurBlast

            You are right it was Jones analysis that came down to 1 tree, YAD06. Mann’s original analysis came down to one series, the Graybill series from Colorado, which was originally collected by Dr. Graybill because those specific kind of pine trees would be insensitive to temperature.

            Mann still used them knowing full well that they were not a temperature proxy.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            So, you’re going to make the same claim that these guys were able to predict the results of dozens of subsequent millennial multiproxy temperature reconstructions using almost no reliable data? That’s quite extraordinary (in other words: idiotic).

          • Concerned

            “What could go wrong with tacky on high resolution data on to low resolution data?”

            It is simply two different data sets plotted on the same graph. Would you be happier if they were plotted on separate graphs and you could view them superimposed on your light table? The comparison of proxy and instrumental data is informative. Resolution has nothing to do with it.

        • Ceist Celt

          Heller (aka the fake “Steve Goddard” who pretended to be a climate scientist for years on his blog before being exposed) MISuses NASA data. eg he creates dishonest misleading graphs ignoring adjustments for time of observation bias, location changes, equipment changes etc

          • Gonzo

            You mean how pre-1979 satellite data showed much less Arctic sea ice? You guys would “never” mis-use data? Right.

          • jack dale

            I gather you are using Heller’s analysis.

            He failed to notice that up to about 1990 ice coverage was measured at 10% coverage. It is now 15%.

            When I pointed that out to him, he banned me from his site.

          • Gonzo

            No it would be the DOE and the IPCC. Do you have a problem with govt scientists now?

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            Perhaps you have an explanation of how there was “much less ice” when global temperatures were cooler.

            This should be good.

          • jack dale

            “Sea-ice is defined to be present when
            its concentration exceeds 10% (Ropelewski, 1983). ”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf page 224

            “The most common threshold (and the one NSIDC uses) is 15 percent, meaning that if the data cell has greater than 15 percent ice concentration, the cell is considered ice covered; less than that and it is said to be ice free.”

            http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/

            Heller fails to understand the different thresholds.

          • jack dale

            59 years of Arctic ice extent (using the identical parameters for coverage)

            https://nsidc.org/sites/nsidc.org/files/images//mean_anomaly_1953-2012.png

          • Rick Kooi

            There are many WW11 & Cold War Photo Recon. photos which CLEARLY show huge amounts of additional ice…..that is one reason why scientists were SO SHOCKED by the ice loss in 79-80 Sat. photos.

            US NAVY frequently landed troops on the ice sheet to measure ice thickness.
            ….8-12 feet was common..
            …..TODAY that is unheard of.
            5-8 feet is fairly common.

            Arctic Temps. reached Freezing and above, mid winter, Dec…with 24 hours of pitch black……NORMAL IS 25-65 below Zero ! ! ! !

            A slushy lake on the Surface of Antarctica the size of Texas (300,000 sq.mile)
            complete with a Niagara like water fall……
            Even a shower….
            How is that possible on the desert continent with an average temp of 50 below. year round.

          • Ceist Celt

            Did you read that on the blog of the fake “Steve Goddard” or someone else’s blog? And you believed it without question?

    • Ceist Celt

      Yale Climate Connections
      Satellite or Surface Temps: Which is More Accurate?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX7aWsxe9yw

    • Gonzo

      [When heat polluted ship intake readings didn’t match sea surface
      temperatures from the gold-standard ARGO bouys, the ARGO bouys were
      brought up in temperature to more closely match the ship intake readings
      and the models.] What a joke of a comment. The ship intake data goes back almost 100yrs while ARGO only came online in 2006-7. Just what are you trying to say?

      • Buzz Fledderjohn

        Not as a systematic method of tracking sea surface temperature.

        • Gonzo

          ARGO is NOT an SST tracking system. They’re non-tethered/drifting buoys moving in the currents. They measure far more than SST’s.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            You said, “The ship intake data goes back almost 100yrs…” and that’s what I responded to.

          • Gonzo

            So just where do you think SST data was derived from if not from ships? Whether from buckets or later engine intakes?

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            “Intake” suggests you’re talking specifically about engine room intake measurements separate from buckets.

          • Gonzo

            The intake data is where Karl found his cooling. Allegedly.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            (rolls eyes)

            Why do I waste my time on people like you?

          • Gonzo

            My thoughts exactly. You folks are like religious zealots. You just want to “believe”.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            No. I merely want to defend the scientific research where ever the data may lead. My mind can be changed **IF** the evidence showed something different.

            YOU, on the other hand, hold an ideological position that all the scientists around the world are involved in a hoax. YOUR mind cannot be changed by any amount of evidence.

          • Gonzo

            Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

            Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
            first thing tomorrow.I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
            land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
            N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
            for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
            data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

            Thanks for the comments, Ray.

            Cheers

            Phil

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            Yes. I know that email quite well.

            Phil is talking about a GRAPHIC he was creating for the cover of a WMO report directed at non-scientific readers. It was NOT a research paper.

            Mike’s “trick” was related to merely adding the modern temperature record to proxy reconstructions.

            “Hide the decline” was referring to a known issue with high NH tree ring series that don’t follow the actual temperature record after 1960.

            Dude. This is old stuff. Move on.

          • IskurBlast

            The problem isnt’ in the data. The problem is in the method. Why should you adjust good data up to match bad data?

          • Ceist Celt

            Yet, you’re the one faithfully parroting evidence-free scientifically illiterate nonsense memes from junkscience conspiracy blogs that you believe are telling you “The Truth”

          • jack dale

            Ironically it is Christian zealots that dismiss climate science.

            Nearly all evangelicals — 88 percent, according to the Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life — believe in miracles, suggesting a faith in a proactive God. And only 28 percent of evangelicals believe human activity is causing climate change. Confidence that God will intervene to prevent people from destroying the world is one of the strongest barriers to gaining conservative evangelical support for environmental pacts like the Paris agreement.

            Not all of course. Katherine Hayhoe is is an Evangelical climate scientist.

          • Ceist Celt

            Is it any surprise that Roy Spencer is ‘science advisor’ for the evangelical Cornwall Alliance. He also does not accept the theory of evolution.

            http://cornwallalliance.org/landmark-documents/the-biblical-perspective-of-environmental-stewardship-subduing-and-ruling-the-earth-to-the-glory-of-god-and-the-benefit-of-our-neighbors/

            John Christy was also a Baptist minister.

            Spencer and Christy are the UAH team.

          • Re: “Is it any surprise that Roy Spencer is ‘science advisor’ for the evangelical Cornwall Alliance. He also does not accept the theory of evolution.”

            Spencer’s religious views have nothing to do with his position on climate science…

            Just kidding. Of course the two are related. Spencer signed on to Cornwall Alliance’s “An Evangelical Declaration on Global warming”
            http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

            He’s signatory #35:
            “Prominent Signers of “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming”
            http://cornwallalliance.org/2009/05/signers-of-an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

            The Declaration is basically motivated by a religious ideology and a fiscal conservative / libertarian ideology. It’s akin to rejecting evolutionary biology for religious reasons. So the Declaration states things like:
            1) God made climate stable, such that humans cannot interfere with climate in a harmful way via anthropogenic climate change (ACC).
            2) ACC is a tool for supporting excessive taxation/regulation, and excessive taxation/regulation is unbiblical.
            3) Recent global warming is part of the natural, God-created cycles of global warming and global cooling; the recent warming is not anthropogenic.

            However, Spencer seems to have pulled back from some of the Declaration’s claims. For example:

            “Nevertheless, as a “lukewarmer” I tend to believe about half of recent warming is indeed human-caused.”
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/05/santer-takes-on-pruitt-the-global-warming-pause-and-the-devolution-of-climate-science/

          • Ceist Celt

            If anyone looks into the signatories there are some other well known climate science so-called “skeptics” who have signed the evangelical Cornwall Alliance declarations. eg Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, Tim Ball, Will Happer, Willie Soon etc.

          • Buzz Fledderjohn

            Earliest systematic measurements of sea surface temperatures come from sailing ships using wooden buckets. They then switched to canvas buckets. And only later did they systematically switch over to engine room intake.

          • Re: “ARGO is NOT an SST tracking system. They’re non-tethered/drifting buoys moving in the currents. They measure far more than SST’s.”
            “So just where do you think SST data was derived from if not from ships? Whether from buckets or later engine intakes?”
            “The intake data is where Karl found his cooling. Allegedly.”

            Argo data has been used to determine sea surface temperatures. When this is done, the temperatures support the homogenization done by Karl et al. in the shift from ERSSTv3b to ERSSTv4. That’s shown in this paper, co-authored by Zeke Hausfather:
            Figures 1 and S2 of: “Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records”

            That paper cites a number of other papers that used Argo data to generate sea surface temperatures:
            “Three different Argo-based near-surface temperature data sets—from the Asia-Pacific Data Research Center (APDRC) (23), the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (hereafter H2008) (24, 25), and Roemmich and Gilson (hereafter RG2009) (26)—are examined, with a number of different data sets chosen to reflect the uncertainty introduced by attempting to reconstruct near-SSTs using Argo data.”
            http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full

            Here are those papers:
            “Validation of Aquarius sea surface salinity with in situ measurements from Argo floats and moored buoys”
            “A monthly mean dataset of global oceanic temperature and salinity derived from Argo float observations”
            “Improved description of global mixed-layer depth using Argo profiling floats”
            “The 2004–2008 mean and annual cycle of temperature, salinity, and steric height in the global ocean from the Argo program”

            Next time, please fact-check before making false claims.

    • Concerned

      “When heat polluted ship intake readings didn’t match sea surface
      temperatures from the gold-standard ARGO bouys, the ARGO bouys were
      brought up in temperature to more closely match the ship intake readings
      and the models.”

      That is a misrepresentation. A systematic bias between the ship and buoy data sets was adjusted out. It does not matter which was moved toward the other. After the adjustment, the data set is re-normalized to calculate anomalies. The results are the same regardless of which data set you “move.”

      Guest post: On Baselines and Buoys | …and Then There’s Physics
      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/guest-post-on-baselines-and-buoys/

  • Merlin Khan

    It’s curious how ALL the corrections made to climate change theory & models have resulted in greater, faster warming. It seems that not only has no model of global warming has ever predicted anything correctly, the “data” gathered has to be corrected because it doesn’t match the models that are based on the incorrect data gathered.

    • jack dale

      UAH satellite data was cooled.

      Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:
      That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
      That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
      That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
      Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
      That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
      The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
      They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
      They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
      The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
      The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
      The expansion of the Hadley cells.
      The poleward movement of storm tracks.
      The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
      The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
      The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
      That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

      • Gonzo

        Nice cut and paste for non-skeptical not science. The realm of a professional cartoonist. Tell us how well GCM’s hindcast?

        • jack dale

          Not from SKS. Sorry.

        • Buzz Fledderjohn

          I would note that the “professional cartoonist” also has an MS in Physics and a PhD in Cognitive Science.

        • Rick Kooi

          FACTS are FACTS….whether they are typed by hand or cut ‘n paste….but you have NO SCIENCE AND NO FACTS …. just personal BS.

          .
          This Holocene interglacial thermal maximum, occurred 7,000-7500 years ago.
          After this maximum, there have been roughly 7000-7500 years of natural cooling,
          as we started the slow descent into the next ice age / glaciation !
          .
          ( much of the last 1000 years is called the LITTLE ICE AGE )
          ( “ICE AGE” because it continued thousands of years of cooling on earth )
          (“LITTLE” because it ended abruptly in 1750-1800 )
          .
          What Caused
          a sudden and complete reversal of the Earth’s Most Powerful natural cooling trend,
          which has occurred in the last 150 – 250 years.
          THERE IS NO natural explanation,
          NO NATURAL CYCLE which explains this complete / sudden reversal, FROM millenia of Falling Temperatures to Rapid RISING Temperatures.
          .
          The CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect does explain it.
          .
          https://www.aip.org/history
          It is science.
          Get some.

          http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
          >>>
          — a sobering punchline for coastal communities that are only now beginning to prepare for a troubling future.

          What was a 2.2 millimeter per year rise in 1993 was a 3.3 millimeter rise in 2014,
          based on estimates of the mass changes of a number of key components of sea level rise,
          such as the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the study in Nature Climate Change found.
          That’s the difference between 0.86 and 1.29 inches per decade

          **
          Although temperatures had been running a little lower than the central estimate of IPCC projections in recent years,
          they were, and are, still within the projected ‘envelope,’ as shown in the figure above and discussed at length in the linked articles.
          Moreover, I added, there was and is a long track record in the scientific literature of successful predictions by climate models.
          It was collected and documented by Barton Paul Levenson (also linked in sidebar.)
          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/26/sea-level-rise-isnt-just-happening-its-getting-faster/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1

          I quoted Barton as follows below,Multi National Global Climate Computer Models
          SPOT-ON-ACCURATELY predicted:
          .
          1.That the EARTH would warm
          (stopping 7500 years of Cooling Temperatures)
          .
          2. How fast the EARTH would warm
          .
          3. How much the EARTH would warm
          .
          4.That the troposphere would warm
          .
          5. That the stratosphere would cool.
          .
          6.That nighttime temperatures would increase MORE than daytime temperatures.
          .
          7.That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
          .
          8.Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
          .
          9.That the Arctic would warm FASTER than the Antarctic.
          .
          10.The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
          .
          11.They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
          .
          12.They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
          .
          13.The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
          .
          14.The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
          .
          15.The expansion of the Hadley cells.
          .
          16.The poleward movement of storm tracks.
          .
          17.The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
          .
          18.The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
          .
          19.The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
          .
          20.That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase….”
          .
          21. 47% of Species have already been disturbed/driven out of their native habitat.
          .
          Correct predictions !
          Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
          .
          https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HNjoaXkAM4EqU.jpg

          http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

          http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

          https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

        • jack dale

          BTW – the first forecast:

          Troposphere warming

          http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

          Stratosphere cooling

          http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/C25/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C25_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

          Heat trapped by anthropogenic GHG’s, i.e., CO2

          The tropopause is also increasing in altitude as a result.

          Predicted by

          https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm8001.pdf

          All detected by satellites.

        • John Samuel

          How is Josh doing over at Weatherboy’s?

    • Buzz Fledderjohn

      “It’s curious how ALL the corrections made to climate change theory & models have resulted in greater, faster warming.”

      They have NOT. You’re making a statement from ignorance. In fact, the largest adjustments actually acted to REDUCE the warming trend of the past century.

      https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

    • Concerned

      “ALL the corrections made to climate change theory & models have resulted in greater, faster warming”

      Nope. Pre-1940 sea surface temperatures measured with buckets had a cold bias. Adjusting out that cold bias made pre-1940 SSTs warmer, reducing the warming trend from 1900 to present. See this graph for the before-and-after adjustment picture.

      https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual.png

      This quote may be of intest:

      “There’s your big dirty secret,” he continued. “The only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore reduces the [warming] trend.”

      https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

  • Husky1992

    Pissed myself laughing. Not one Scientist worth his PhD with any credibility would publish this rubbishy. I see no reference to peer review.

    • jack dale

      Really? Mears and Wentz of RSS are highly credible. This is about their own data.

      • James Owens

        Jack, a clarification of modest details (no argument, in other words).
        Actually NASA (public) data. RSS stores and processes the data for NASA.
        Then, Mears and Wentz have spent the time to develop the algorithms to translate the microwave inputs into temperature.
        Over the years they’ve also spent the time and effort along with others to gradually tease out issue. They constructively adopted the problems pointed out by Po-Chedley et al and helped to address them – correcting the errors introduced by orbital decay. They’ve also tried to address the algorithm’s weighting functions to reduce the cooling bias from inclusion of some stratospheric contamination.
        So full agreement on their expertise and their credibility.

        • jack dale

          Perhaps should read:

          This is about their own analysis of the data.

    • jaymtee

      Here’s the reference…. Go ahead and peer review it. I assume you have relevant knowledge in atmospheric remote sensing and physics.

      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

    • Buzz Fledderjohn

      I’d suggest you now clean yourself up and go read the paper that jaymtee just posted.

    • James Owens

      Actual citation. Mears and Wentz A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects J Climate D0768 2017
      Journal of Climate is peer reviewed.
      Please think and check before you type.
      There’s actually a series of papers on this subject.
      Po-Chedley et al Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures J Climate 28:2274-2290 2015
      Mears & Wentz Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment J Climate 29:3629-3646 2016
      Santer et al Comparing Tropospheric Warming in Climate Models and Satellite Data J Climate 30:373-392 2016
      Santer et al Tropospheric Warming Over The Past Two Decades Scientific Adv v7 scia2336 2017
      Santer et al Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates Nature Geoscience vol 10 ngeo2739 pubished online 19 June 2017

    • Rick Kooi

      and if it were, you would be ideologically DRIVEN to call it a lie.
      same ol’, same ol’ !

  • Patrick Trombly

    This is Orwellian.

    • James Owens

      Patrick, first, some key background and a helpful page. The RSS data is processed to be weighted towards different levels of the atmosphere. See their display page at http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html On the left upper side is a menu for the “channel” or level of the atmosphere – the selection will be highlighted in the figure immediately below. TLT is the lower troposphere and TMT is the middle troposphere.
      Now, second, a previous paper dealt with corrections to the TMT – and a similar shift in warming trend was observed – see Figure 8 of Mears & Wentz Sensitivity of satellite-derived tropospheric temperature trends to the diurnal cycle adjustment J Climate 29:3629-3646 2016
      Uncorrected trend (version 3) 0.078 K per decade
      Corrected trend (version 4) 0.125 K per decade
      Again, about the same magnitude of change there as in this second paper for the TLT.
      So just science cleaning up its systems, removing errors, correcting things, moving on.
      Nothing Orwellian about it.

    • Rick Kooi

      YEP….this is life under TRUMP….demanding all voting records and Social Security infor.

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HNjoaXkAM4EqU.jpg

      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

  • James Owens

    So several sets of data and methods apparently don’t agree. Most scientists will be curious – why? And they will start to explore and dig. And they will usually find out why – like the orbital decay of satellites, the need for weighting algorithms for satellite data to minimize stratospheric cooling, and so on. Eventually, they work things out, find where the errors are, and correct the errors. The trouble for some is that their beliefs depend on the existence of those errors – so they tend to get mad at the scientists. That may help explain some of the comments.

    • Rick Kooi

      except, of course, this is moving toward more over all accuracy and agreement.

      Sadly you are ideologically blinded to the thrust of this article.

      • jhoptoad

        Rick, I think you have misunderstood James’s point here. “The trouble for some is that their beliefs depend on the existence of those errors ” refers to the “skeptics,” not the realists.

  • Rick Kooi

    As another Proof of stunning changes:
    WHILE we should be sliding into another REAL Ice Age,
    Since we are 7500 years past the Temperature HIGH of this Inter Glacial warm period.
    (holocene optimum)
    Temperatures have slowly fallen for 7500 years.
    The last 1000 years
    (LITTLE ICE AGE)
    ended abruptly and ended falling temperatures.
    .
    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
    .
    Temperatures are rising.
    .
    ..COUNTER TO EVERY Natural Cycle.
    .
    ( GOOGLE: Milankovitch Cycle )
    .
    Earth’s most powerful natural cycle > > > >OVERPOWERED by What?
    .
    We should be moving toward the next GLACIATION
    …but we ARE warming !

    INFRA RED HEAT RADIATION EMITTED from EARTH as a cooling mechanism,

    INTERACTS WITH Atmospheric Gases
    …that I.R. Heat is captured and redirected in all directions.
    …MUCH of it back at Earth…which ADDS TO the WARMING of our GLOBE.
    THIS IS MEASURED by a variety of
    Satellites,
    Digital Weather Balloons,
    With Ground Spectroscopic stations…..confirm all the details of this process.
    ..
    For THOUSANDS OF YEARS,
    the Lowly Pine Beetle was confined to the far Southern Latitudes by the severe cold up north.
    NOW,
    it is routine to find the PINE BEETLE well north of FAIRBANKS, ALASKA, and across N. Canada.
    Pine beetles are felling more trees than wildfires and the timber industry combined.
    .
    In some regions–Alaska, for example–warmer, longer summers …
    “We’re going to see a virtually complete loss of mature lodgepole pines in the state due to the Pine Beetle.

    The Winter In the Arctic is a land of perpetual NIGHT, NO sun to warm the Temperatures.
    so temps routinely are 20 Below-65 BELOW ZERO
    & no matter the time of day…ICE SHEETS Should be GROWING
    So
    Imagine the mid winter SHOCK:
    TEMPS in the NORTH polar regions have been ABOVE FREEZING !
    2nd year in a row…with 24 hour darkness……ABOVE FREEZING !
    How is that possible? Usually 20 Below Zero to 60 Below Zero !

    A Slushy Lake the size of TEXAS, 300,000 square miles…complete with Niagara-like Falls from Ice Field onto Salt Sea.
    Even a Rain Shower on the desert continent with an average temperature, historically, of 50 BELOW ZERO.

    THERE’S NO GLOBAL WARMING…..EVERYTHING IS JUST HUNKY DORY IN MY BACK YARD !

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HNjoaXkAM4EqU.jpg

    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

  • Notagovernmenttitsucker

    Funny how Dr Roy Spencer predicted this! Here is something for the layman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_RuverrEZ4 More graphs here over longer time period.
    Also this sounds like East Anglia climate models at work again yes I have the e-mails and source code that the post grad student wrote a note to himself after the : “We are going to spend trillions on this crap”. Government grants flow easily to the ones that have a predetermined out come that the politician wants. Would love to see software source code used on the raw date to get data closer to matching climate modes, and then take the schematic of the hard ware on the satellite to some engineers I know to explain why it had to be adjusted and how the degradation of altitude affected the the measurement. With solar minimum on the way according to NASA this all my be a mute point.

    • Ceist Celt

      Your video starts with a nutty anti-evolution dance about sex and how “Bill Nye Lies”, and goes downhill with a rant by some conservative religious dude about ‘progressives’ and a whole lot of pseudoscience nonsense. Is this something you actually found “credible”?

    • jack dale

      A peer-reviewed discussion of solar minima for you:

      Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
      Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
      Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7535 (2015)
      doi:10.1038/ncomms8535
      Received:
      23 May 2014
      Accepted:
      14 May 2015
      Published online:
      23 June 2015
      Abstract
      Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

    • Ceist Celt

      The video starts with a weird anti-evolution dance and goes downhill ranting about “progressives” and Bill Nye.

      Video presenter Bill Whittle uses a classic dishonest tactic of misrepresenting Professor Richard Alley’s GISP2 Greenland dataset as if it were the global average temperature. He also doesn’t appear to know that the GISP2 dataset ended in 1855.

      Is this video something you actually find “credible”?

      Why not watch presentations of Professor Richard Alley himself, rather than someone dishonestly misrepresenting his work?

      Richard Alley -4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2
      National Academy of Sciences Symposium 2015
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg

      or a longer presentation at the 2009 AGU conference:

      The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UVb–2-PBg

      By the way, not that it should matter, but Professor Richard Alley is a Republican (only mentioning this fact because the video seems to be more of an anti “progressives” rant than anything else)

    • jack dale
      • Ceist Celt

        It’s good to see Peter Hadfield (aka Potholer54) active again with his debunking videos of fake ‘skeptic’ myths and false claims.

    • jack dale

      Richard Alley responds to the misuse of GISP 2 data:

      So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.

      https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

    • theinitiate

      Here is something you might want to wrap your head around, “Notagovernmenttitsucker”
      The government is doing something very wrong. Your government, my government, is lying… they are not telling the truth. There have been MANY POLICIES MADE TO ENRICH SOME PEOPLE… The data, has been twisted and manipulated… Government officials, have developed the climate change fighting strategies according to POLITICAL GOALS/AIMS… which DO translate to MAKING MONEY…. HOWEVER, ALL THIS IS TO KEEP THE CURRENT, LIFE SUCKING, EARTH DESTROYING, SPECIES KILLING CAPITALIST SYSTEM CHUGGING ALONG… so that you can have MONEY to do with what you want. …. IF THE GOVERNMENT was truly concerned and doing the CORRECT STRATEGIES…. we would have changed out this capitalist system LONG LONG AGO…. NOW … IT IS TOO LATE. There is no way in hell we are going to save ourselves… SO, ALL YOU DENIALIST GOT YOUR WISH….. WHICH, MUST HAVE BEEN A DEATH WISH. We can argue till the cows come home about whether or not there is global warming, how fast it is happening an whether or not people can SURVIVE… well, it is not just PEOPLE that need to survive, dear sir, IT IS THE NATURAL WEB OF LIFE…. which has been BROKEN.

    • Ben Johannson

      It’s usually a good idea to hide your bias by not naming yourself “Notagovernmenttitsucker.”

      For example, if an actual real scientist posted under the name “lovetolie” we would be justified in skepticism toward their writings. So it is with you.

  • tarajunky

    They haven’t figured out how to tamper with the long run tide gauge records, and there is zero advantage to using the satellites they can tamper with for sea level.

    That must be why the world’s tide gauges all have straight line trends,with zero evidence of acceleration and none of the warmists want to talk about it.

    • Ceist Celt

      Sounds like something you should report to Infowars

    • jack dale
      • tarajunky

        I stand corrected.

        “Adjusted Tide Gauge Data” with satellites spliced on the end. Well played warmists, well played.

        I guess as long as they can keep people from looking at the actual Tide gauge data and all the straight lines, they can rig up Frankenstein figures like that one.

        • jack dale

          Please show us the “actual” tide gauge data.

    • Re: “That must be why the world’s tide gauges all have straight line trends,with zero evidence of acceleration and none of the warmists want to talk about it.”

      Why do you make stuff up, as opposed to knowing what you’re talking about? The rate of sea level rise during the period of strong anthropogenic warming (1970 on-wards) is greater than the rate of sea level rise before then. See:
      Table 2 of: “Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?”
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

      I sometimes wonder why people behave the way you do. Why do you make stuff up, as opposed to doing basic fact-checking? Do you value your ideology more than you value the truth?

  • Concerned

    Thank you Zeke. You are excellent at explaining adjustments and comparing data sets.

    It is gratifying to see the surface and satellite temperatures reach closer agreement. It looks like one of the long-standing arguments of skeptics has gone down in flames.

    Congratulations to Carl Mears and company.

  • Hi, Dr. Hausfather.

    I know you’ve commented on tropical tropospheric amplification before, using the old RSS analysis (version 3):
    https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/839929130338521089

    Now I’m curious how the aforementioned paper will affect RSS’ calculation of tropical tropospheric amplification. The new RSS TLT version 4 has a larger tropical warming trend, but the paper notes that this trend still likely has a cold bias:
    “A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”

    Now, that TLT trend can be taken together with the RSS TMT trend from here:
    “Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment”

    So, is the TMT trend > TLT trend? If so, then there’s tropospheric amplification. You already mentioned that there’s tropospheric amplification relative to the surface, since the TLT trend > surface trend. Santer et al. argued that the TMT trend > TLT trend:
    “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”

    But Santer et al. used the old RSS TLT version 3 for that. So I wonder how their analysis holds up with the RSS TLT version 4.

    Also, there’s an error at the bottom of page 4 of the paper you’re discussing. It’s at the end of the sentence that ends with the term “merged”, in line 74 of the paper. Hopefully that can get fixed before publication.

  • poonzilla

    “Climate Science” the only branch of science where if the result doesn’t match your hypothesis you revise the data until it does…

    • John Samuel

      These scientists are admitting to error and correcting it. You just don’t like the conclusions, snowflake.

      • G_unitttt

        Oh sweetie, you are clearly not a scientist. This is called “massaging” the data. #ClimateScam #Fraud #NeverGoFullLibtard

      • Salam Jalabati

        Oops! Guess what. It’s worse than we thought. Now there’s a surprise.

        • John Samuel

          Scientists are conservative by nature. They will tend to underestimate.

      • poonzilla

        Interesting that every “error” they make seems to be that historical temp data is deemed to low.

    • John Samuel

      [Please keep this discussion civil and stick to facts and evidence. Accusations of ‘scam’ and ‘fraud’ risk being deleted. MOD]

    • Ceist Celt

      Climate science appears to be the only branch of science where the normal process of correcting data for things like orbital decay of satellites and changes in time of observation or equipment, gets turned into a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

  • Ceist Celt

    Note that when armchair fake “skeptics” know nothing about science but don’t like the conclusions, they make cavalier evidence-free accusations of fraud and misconduct by scientists. So much easier than spending years studying and doing research.

  • G_unitttt

    Always with the “corrections” one direction showing alarming warming #MediaLies #GovLies #FakeNews #VeryFakeNews

    • jack dale

      Nope. When UAH corrected their analysis of the data, the result was cooler.

      • G_unitttt

        Follow the logic son….. the past is made cooler to make the present warmer. Neat little trick. #NeverGoFullLibtard #ClimateScam #Fraud

        • John Samuel

          #upisdowndownisupwehavealwaysbeenatwarwtiheastasia

      • G_unitttt

        Evidently I was censored on this site when my comment removed. As I stated previously, the early data is routinely cooled….making recent temps appear to show dramatic warming trend. This is scientific rubbish #NeverGoFullLibtard

        • G_unitttt

          “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

          We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.” Michael Crichton – author

        • G_unitttt

          “Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.” Michael Crichton http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx

        • jack dale

          Please document that assertion with original sources.

    • John Samuel
    • John Samuel
  • Patrick Hughes

    In addition to fake news now we have fake science. If the data contridicts the faith then ‘adjust’ the data.

  • Bart

    Up until maybe 5 years ago, the surface data and the satellite data matched fairly well. Then, the surface data were “adjusted” to eliminate the “pause”, and the long knives came out against the satellite data, seeking to disparage it at every turn.

    Now, the RSS version of the satellite data has been “adjusted” to agree with the surface record. The UAH team will eventually retire, and it will all get swept down the memory hole.

    The plain fact of the matter is that the data are uncertain, and there are endless ways in which it can be “adjusted” to show greater or lesser warming. After all, we’re talking “adjustments” here that are about 1/10th of a degree Celsius – a change that most people could not even detect. A normal person’s own body temperature varies by about 12 times as much as this during a typical day (+/- about 0.6 C).

    The problem is that, with the surface data and now RSS, the focus is on ferreting out “adjustments” that show superficially greater warming. Little to no effort is made to justify “adjustments” that lead to greater cooling. It is an exercise in confirmation bias. The scientific method has become a casualty of agenda driven “science”.

    • John Samuel

      Please produce evidence of a pause.

      The globe warms: surface, troposphere, oceans and melting ice.

      The surface warms
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to/trend

      The troposphere warms.
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1987/plot/rss/from:1987/trend
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1987/plot/uah/from:1987/trend
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1987/plot/uah6/from:1987/trend

      The oceans warm…
      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
      …and rise 3.4 mm per year…
      http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/global-mean-sea-level-time-series-seasonal-signals-removed
      …up from 0.8 mm per year a century ago…
      https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/hansen-sea-level-rise.png
      …the pace of the rise has tripled…
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/05/22/scientists-say-the-rate-of-sea-level-rise-has-nearly-tripled-since-1990/
      …and acidify by 30% since the industrial revolution.
      http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

      The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
      – 159 Gt Antarctic land ice, McMillan el al, GRL (2014),http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
      + 26 Gt Antarctic sea ice, Holland et al, J Climate (2014) , http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1
      – 261 Gt Arctic sea ice, PIOMAS, http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
      – 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al, GRL (2014),http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059010/abstract
      – 259 Gt other land based glaciers, Gardner et al. Science (2013),http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/852.abstract
      = – 1,031 Gt, total

      Greenland losing ice mass
      https://sealevel.nasa.gov/resources/89/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2016

      Antarctica losing ice mass
      https://sealevel.nasa.gov/resources/90/antarctic-ice-loss-2002-2016

      Because CO2 is rising due to man.
      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

      Remember, climate is measured over at least 30 years.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

      • Bart

        You must have had that one waiting to pounce to have responded so quickly. The phrase to describe it is “snow job”. Throw up so much chaff that nobody can take the time to respond to it.

        The “pause” is real. I’m not going to argue over it. If you want to cover your eyes and deny it, then you have a religious outlook, and it is futile to argue with religion.

        The argument is not over whether the world has warmed slightly over the past century. Anyone who can read a graph knows it has. The questions are, do we have anything significant to do with it, and is there anything significant we can do about it? The answers are “no”, and “no”.

        • John Samuel

          If the pause was real where is it in the data?

          Man broke it. Man can fix it. Yes, we can.

          • Bart

            No we didn’t. No, we cannot.

          • John Samuel

            No scientific body on the planet agrees with you. Not a one. Not anywhere.

            Since the industrial revolution man has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40%. We have known that CO2 absorbs IR since 1856. It is no surprise that the world warms.

            Man broke it. Man can fix it. Yes, we can.

          • Bart

            So you claim. But, it is not unusual for the scientific consensus to be dead wrong.

            CO2 concentration is a temperature dependent phenomenon. Our inputs, gradually returning CO2 to the cycle that nature has systematically removed over time, have negligible impact in our time:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/plot/hadsst3sh/scale:0.27/offset:0.1/from:1960

            There are a great many steps between CO2 absorption of IR to CO2 causing surface warming. It is necessary, but not sufficient.

            No we didn’t. No, we cannot.

          • John Samuel

            All you need to do is produce evidence that the consensus is wrong.
            You have failed to do so for many decades. Where are the deniers’ papers?

            The scientists are right. You are wrong.

          • Bart

            “All you need to do is produce evidence that the consensus is wrong.”

            Done. See above. The GCMs that assume significant CO2 to temperature sensitivity are all running way hot.

            “Where are the deniers’ papers?”

            Good question. There is clearly something pathological going on. If I say more, it will probably end in my comment being deleted.

            “The scientists are right.”

            Being a scientist, I’ll agree. But, you really need to be more specific.

            “And we need to.”

            Why?

          • John Samuel

            Your post is scientific evidence? I rarely LOL, but seriously?

            You’re a scientist? Christian Scientist or Scientologist?

            The scientists are right, we need to. You are not even wrong.

          • Bart

            Okey-dokey. You can believe whatever makes you feel comfortable.

          • John Samuel

            I believe in evidence and science. You do not.

          • Bart

            Correct. I do not believe. Belief is an expression of faith. I know.

          • Concerned

            What intellectually dishonest garbage. You are the one who used the word “believe” first. If he had used the words “accept” or “understand” you would have found some other complaint.

          • Bart

            So? Suggesting I do not deal in evidence or science is obviously a lame attempt to claim the high ground by someone who has nothing to offer but bluster. Meh.

          • John Samuel

            Still no evidence? Meh.

          • Rick Kooi

            SOOOOOOOOOO, where is this evidence?

            Religious like Zeal and Verbal Bluster does not make for Evidence.

            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

            https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04052017/global-warming-hiatus-debunked-climate-science
            .
            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/climate-change-global-warming-drawdown-hawken/?google_editors_picks=true
            .
            American meteorologists:
            Symptoms of climate change are rampant, undeniable
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/
            *
            These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.
            What’s Really Warming the World?
            http://www.bloomberg.com/graph
            *
            Climate change: How do we know
            http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden

          • Ceist Celt

            Umm Bart… all you have ‘provided’ is bluster in the form of ridiculous unsupported assertions and waffling pseudoscience found on conspiracy blogs. No evidence. No literature. No science.

          • Bart

            Read again. This time for comprehension.

          • Ceist Celt

            I’ve read your posts. The fact that you believe you have ‘provided evidence’ is hilarious.

          • Bart

            Read it again.

          • John Samuel

            All the best zealots know without evidence. Well done.

          • Bart

            No, they believe fervently. They do not know.

          • John Samuel

            No, they have evidence.

            You are deluding yourself.

          • Bart

            Bor-ing…

          • John Samuel

            No hyphen required. Dullard.

          • [Re: “Correct. I do not believe. Belief is an expression of faith. I know.”]

            Since you’ve decided to be pedantic… not all beliefs are a matter of faith. For instance, some beliefs are based on evidence, such as my belief that smoking causes cancer or my belief that Earth is round. A belief is just accepting a claim is true. Having a belief doesn’t say how you came to that belief; you could have come to the belief by faith, by evidence, by a logical proof, etc.

            Also, knowledge is a form of belief. For example, virtually every philosophical account of “X knows that P” entails that “X has a true belief that P”. “Knowledge” is then “True belief + …”. For example, the classical account of knowledge states that knowledge is “justified true belief”.

            So you’re contradicting yourself when you say:
            “I do not believe. […] I know.”
            Your statement is on the level of saying:
            “I am not male. I am a bachelor.”
            Or:
            “I do not drive a vehicle. I drive a car.”

            Next time, if you’re going to be pedantic, then make sure you know what you’re talking about.
            😉

          • Concerned

            “CO2 concentration is a temperature dependent phenomenon.”

            Amusing. Show how changing density or temperature changes the concentration in ppm. Show that CO2 is not a well-mixed gas. I’ll be waiting.

            “returning CO2 to the cycle that nature has systematically removed over time”

            Another funny. Show how the carbonate weathering cycle, which occurs over millions of years, is affecting warming over the next century or two.

            “There are a great many steps”

            OK. I am all ears. What steps are being ignored by scientists?

          • Bart

            “Show how changing density or temperature changes the concentration in ppm.”

            It is a dynamic not unlike the GHE. This is a dynamic problem involving a persistent flux. In the case of CO2, it is the transport flux from the atmosphere into the oceans, and back out again. In the case of the GHE, it is radiative flux from sunlight to the Earth’s surface and back out again.

            For the GHE, when the outward radiative flux is impeded, all things being equal, energy storage increases, producing rising temperatures, until the balance is restored.

            For CO2, rising temperature impedes the flux into the oceans. As a result, CO2 rises until balance can be restored. Rebalancing, however, takes on the order of time necessary for overturning circulation, which is very long (centuries). In the interim, content of the surface oceans steadily increases, and the atmospheric concentration ineluctably follows.

            Our contributions merely become part of the overall flow and, since they are only a tiny proportion of the overall flow, their impact on concentration is small.

            There really is no question about it. The plot given above shows plainly that the rate of change of CO2 is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly. The match is even better with higher quality satellite data:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/uah6/offset:0.73/scale:0.2

            The match is both with the variation and the long term trend. Human emissions also have a long term trend. But, the trend is already accounted for by the temperature relationship. Ergo, human emissions must have insignificant impact.

            “Show how the carbonate weathering cycle, which occurs over millions of years, is affecting warming over the next century or two.”

            It’s not. Neither is it today. CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator of temperatures.

            But, it is getting us into dangerous territory with regard to CO2 levels. Life today evolved for higher levels, and will shut down if it ever gets too low. We need more, not less.

            “What steps are being ignored by scientists?”

            It’s not so much being ignored as being improperly parameterized. CO2 is both an impedance to outgoing radiation, and a heat sink that radiates thermalized heat away. How the two processes interact determines the net impact. The GCMs are parameterized in such a way that the former dominates the latter. But, there are no actual data confirming what the balance should be.

          • Concerned

            “Our contributions merely become part of the overall flow and, since they
            are only a tiny proportion of the overall flow, their impact on
            concentration is small.”

            Thanks for your explanation of what you meant by temperature dependent concentration. You really meant to say temperature dependent source and sink rates. Source and sinks rates are temerature dependent, but I think you are not looking at it correctly. You are talking about the rates of human CO2 emission compared with the total rates of emission and absorption from all sources and sinks throughout the carbon cycle. Yes, that human source rate fraction is fairly small, but it threw an equilibrium system out of balance. What matters is not the source fraction but the inventory of CO2 (the concentration). The inventory of CO2, which is the integral over time of the rates from all sources and to all sinks, is increasing slowly. That increase of inventory, 46% since pre-industrial, is all human caused. The human cause has been verified by mass balance and isotopic analysis.

            “CO2 concentration is a lagging indicator of temperatures.”

            Nope.
            Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation (Shakun (2012)).
            http://www.atm.damtp.cam.ac.uk/mcintyre/shakun-co2-temp-lag-nat12.pdf
            The reason for that is previous misinterpretation of Antarctic ice core temperateres as if they were global average temperatures, which they obviously were not.

            More important, regardless of what happened during the last deglaciation, the mecnanism is different now. We are 7000 years past the interglacial thermal maximum. It should be cooling naturally, but it is warming. Right now, human-caused CO2 is leading the human-caused warming. Not the same thing at all.

            “improperly parameterized”
            “How the two processes interact determines the net impact.”

            That is not right either. The greenhouse effect is based on the integration of differential equations of radiation heat transfer, including local absorption of photons in GHG molecules, thermalization of the energy increase of the GHG molecules by collisions, and emission of further radiation. These local differential equations are integrated in 3-D, including also effects of convection and lapse rate. There has been no dispute about the equations and this model for 50 years or so. It is not a “parameterization” as you say. It is based on physical properties that are measured in the laboratory. The results are verified by looking at spectra and fluxes using satellites and other instruments.

            https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

          • Bart

            “Yes, that human source rate fraction is fairly small, but it threw an equilibrium system out of balance.”

            Begging the question.

            “The human cause has been verified by mass balance and isotopic analysis.”

            Pseudo-mass balance arguments are pitifully ignorant of how dynamic systems achieve balance. Isotopic analysis does not provide a unique explanation.

            “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation (Shakun (2012)).”

            Torture the data long enough, and you can make it confess. But, this is moot anyway. In the present time, since at least 1958 when reliable CO2 measurements became available, it is clear from the plots I have provided that temperatures have been driving CO2, and not the reverse. As this era accounts for the lion’s share of the rise from the purported pre-industrial level, it is all that is needed to confirm that human inputs have had negligible impact.

            ” The greenhouse effect is based on the integration of differential equations of radiation heat transfer, including local absorption of photons in GHG molecules, thermalization of the energy increase of the GHG molecules by collisions, and emission of further radiation.”

            And, all of these processes for the models are parameterized, and coupling constants based upon everything from extrapolation of unrepresentative experiments to outright guesswork.

            “There has been no dispute about the equations and this model for 50 years or so.”

            Rather an indictment of the establishment, I would say. Again, all of the GCMs with significant sensitivity are running way hot. Something is not right.

            “It is based on physical properties that are measured in the laboratory.”

            If I could count the number of times we measured something in the lab, only to find reality outside the lab held surprises we hadn’t anticipated, I would have reached a very high number.

            ” The results are verified by looking at spectra and fluxes using satellites and other instruments.”

            No, the results are rationalized by doing so. The results that don’t agree with expectations are scrutinized until a way can be found to shove them into the paradigm. The results that agree are given little consideration. That is how the demon of confirmation bias insinuates itself.

          • Concerned

            “Torture the data long enough”
            “confirmation bias”

            Thanks for confirming that you have no evidence of your own that the consensus is wrong and that your only purpose here is to make specious arguments. I’ll stop this fruitless discussion now. Where are the deniers’ papers?

          • Bart

            Yes, there is little point to repeating ourselves. All has been said that needs to be said. I have provided evidence, and I have addressed the suppression of contrary authors in the literature. Interested parties can review our discussion above and come to their own conclusions.

          • Ceist Celt

            What ‘evidence’ have you provided? What authors have been suppressed in the literature?

          • Ceist Celt

            Bart says: “temperatures have been driving CO2, and not the reverse”.

            So Bart, what do you believe has been driving the temperatures to rise?

          • Bart

            Natural oscillations in heat storage and release. These are known, to some extent. We give some manifestations names, like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. But, the full scope of their impact is not yet appreciated.

          • Ceist Celt

            That doesn’t make any sense. I can guess the pseudoscience conspiracy blogs you read by your answers.

          • Bart

            Of course it makes physical sense. Naturally occurring oscillations are ubiquitous in nature. They are always present in the solutions of partial differential equations on bounded domains.

            Do you have anything to offer besides ad hominem bile?

          • Bart

            I see the original comment was deleted. It was my shorthand for pointing out that the proffered arguments were circulus in probando and ad ignorantiam.

          • Concerned

            “Naturally occurring oscillations are ubiquitous in nature.”

            Right. But they don’t add energy to the earth’s climate system, so they can’t cause heating of the climate. They redistribute heat in the system. There is no physics behind your argument. You are not even wrong.

          • Bart

            Wrong. Were that true, there would be no El Ninos. It is as much about the distribution as it is about the forcing.

          • Concerned

            “Wrong Were that true, there would be no El Ninos.”

            El Nino / La Nina cycles are an internal oscillation (ENSO). You can’t have one without the other. They are not forced. That means they do not add energy to the system. Here is a post at Judith Curry’s site that explains it.
            https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/29/what-is-internal-variability/

            Do you even read the bullshit you write?

          • Bart

            I feel like I am talking to a child. It all depends on where you draw your boundary. If you draw it about the solar system, then you can argue that there is no (or no significant) energy added to the system from anything. In all cases, we are talking about energy being displaced from one spot to another.

            We are experiencing surface heating. If you draw your boundary there, then ENSO is an external oscillation.

            There are other oscillations besides ENSO. You may be assured that some reach all the way to the depths of the oceans. For all our exploration, there is much about the oceans we do not know.

            There are also long term tidal forcings, and solar variations, that displace stored energy from one repository to another. These, in particular, are probably responsible for the redistribution of heat within Earthly reservoirs that has produce the warming we have experienced since the LIA.

            Your worldview is very small. You need to expand your horizons.

          • [Re: “In the present time, since at least 1958 when reliable CO2 measurements became available, it is clear from the plots I have provided that temperatures have been driving CO2, and not the reverse.”]

            You’re running the same nonsensical argument from Humlum et. al.:

            “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-E_Solheim/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature/links/56e4581508ae68afa1106148.pdf

            Humlum et. al. is flawed and it fails to show that the oceans (as opposed to humans) are responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. This has been pointed out by a number of other researchers.

            This includes Richardson:
            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

            Masters and Benestad:
            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature””
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

            Along with Kern and Leuenberger:
            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001562

            The conclusion of Humlum et. al. makes no sense for a number of reasons. The sources above discuss some of these reasons. For example:

            1) Oceans are acting as net uptakers of CO2, which conflicts with Humlum et. al.’s claim that the oceans are acting as net releasers of CO2 and are thus cause the increase in atmospheric CO2.
            2) Humlum et. al’s results don’t make sense in light of the carbon isotope data for atmospheric CO2.
            3) They didn’t adequately account for the role of ENSO (i.e. El Nino and Lan Nina) in their data, which skewed their results. When this oversight is corrected, Humlum et. al.’s conclusion fails. For more on this, see:
            “On the Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature”

            Hence why scientists say CO2 caused the recent warming, not the other way around. For example:

            “On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature”

          • Ceist Celt

            I suspect Bart read something on a conspiracy blog and is just parroting it.

          • Bart

            These are very dumb responses.

          • Ceist Celt

            No, he exposed your evidence-free pseudoscience waffle for what it is.

          • [I]Re: “Our contributions merely become part of the overall flow and, since they are only a tiny proportion of the overall flow, their impact on concentration is small.”[/I]

            Nope:

            “The short residence time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means that the mass of CO2 of directly anthropogenic origin in the atmosphere is only a small fraction of the excess CO2 that has built up since the industrial revolution. However, while certainly counter-intuitive, this does not support the conclusion that anthropogenic emissions cannot therefore be the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2 observed since the industrial revolution. Again, this common misunderstanding of the carbon cycle is a result of the large exchange fluxes, and is most easily explained by an analogy adapted from that of Engelbeen:
            Consider a married couple, who keep their joint savings in a large jar. The husband, who works in Belgium, deposits six euros a week, always in the form of six one-euro coins minted in Belgium, but makes no withdrawals. His partner, who works in France, deposits 190 euros a week, always in the form of 190 one-euro coins, all minted in France. Unlike her husband, however, she also takes out 193 euro per week, drawn at random from the coins in the jar. At the outset of their marriage, the couple’s savings consisted of the 597 French-minted one euro coins comprising her savings. Clearly, if this situation continued for some time, the couple’s savings would steadily rise by 3 euros per week (the net difference between total deposits and withdrawals). It is equally obvious that the increase in their savings was due solely to the relatively small contributions made by the husband, as the wife consistently spent a little more each week than she saved (11).
            […]
            This analogy provides a very crude model of the global carbon cycle, where anthropogenic and natural fluxes are constant. The jar representing the atmosphere, a Belgian euro representing a Gt of carbon from anthropogenic emissions, a French Euro representing a Gt of carbon from “natural” sources, a week in the couple’s finances a year in the global carbon cycle and their initial savings corresponds to the magnitude of the pre-industrial atmospheric reservoir (compare the figures used with those given in Figure 1). Hence for the real-world carbon cycle, it is reasonable to expect the proportion of CO2 of directly anthropogenic origin to be very small, and for the bulk of the excess CO2 above pre-industrial equilibrium concentration to be comprised of molecules emitted by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere, *even if the observed rise is of purely anthropogenic origin.* This surprising and counter-intuitive result stems from the effect of the large exchange fluxes in the natural carbon cycle (13).”
            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.713.6770&rep=rep1&type=pdf

          • Ceist Celt

            SMH. It’s like Bart has never even read a highschool textbook on the carbon cycle, let alone atmospheric physics.

          • Bart

            Weak.

          • Ceist Celt

            It’s accurate

          • Bart

            Again, nothing to say, so ad hom it is.

          • Rick Kooi

            1799
            “Climate Change was Postulated in 1799, Alexander von Humboldt.”
            On his world wide scientific tour. Hosted by Simon Bolivar.
            .
            1811
            “Climate Changed Scientifically tied to Global Warming & Human Activity by physicist & astronomer Simeon Denis Poisson, 1811….”
            .
            He lectured, extensively, on this threat by 1827 !
            .
            1847
            “George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) author of the 1847 lecture that predicted
            > “human-induced climate change.” “….The line of Solid empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows
            .
            We’re raising CO2 levels and H2O & other gasses.
            (here is how we have determined it)
            Human carbon dioxide emissions & other gasses are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
            .
            Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
            For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million.
            .
            Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by OVER 110 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
            .
            ( Instead of 225-285PPM, as it has been for well over 10,000 years, today we are NOW ‘OVER’ 411PPM ! )
            .
            ( What has change which has caused this to occur? )
            .
            Atmospheric CO2 levels and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC).
            While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million,
            here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes.
            CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
            ….
            ( Humans are NOW emitting more than 135 TIMES as much CO2 as ALL of the volcanoes on EARTH, each & every year, COMBINED ! )
            (The Unique Isotopic Signature proves that this CO2 INCREASE is from the Burning of Fossil Fuels)
            .
            CO2 traps heat
            .
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/scientists-just-documented-a-massive-melt-event-on-the-surface-of-antarctica/?wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
            .
            According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

            * In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
            * In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
            * Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing I.R. energy radiation over the 26 year period .
            .
            GOOGLE: IRIS Satellite
            GOOGLE: Japanese Satellite IMG
            Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).

            What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
            The change/reduction in outgoing radiation was consistent with Global Warming theoretical expectations.

            ** Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Global Warming.

            ((If Infra Red Energy, does not escape, it is retained in our Earth System as rising temperatures.))

            This result has been confirmed by subsequent Research papers using data from later satellites.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Griggs 2004)
            Google this SOURCE: ( Chen 2007 )
            .
            Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
            ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
            .
            When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
            Much of it makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
            .
            Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
            .
            Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Wang 2009)
            .
            A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Philipona 2004)
            .
            Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
            .
            The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
            .
            Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
            Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
            .
            The planet is accumulating heat
            .
            When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
            .
            Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
            Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere.
            Land and ice heat content(eg-the energy required to melt ice)were also included.
            .
            Total Earth Heat Content from 1950.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
            .
            SOURCE: (Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.)
            .
            From 1970 to 2003,
            the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
            .
            Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
            .
            What about after 2003?
            A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep .
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (von Schuckmann 2009)
            .
            Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Hansen 2005)
            Google this SOURCE: (Trenberth 2009).

            The planet continues to accumulate heat.

            1. So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.

            2. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellites and many surface measurements.

            3. The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements….”

          • Bart

            How much of 19th century science has held up over time? Don’t you know we are supposed to be running out of oxygen by now, according to the giants of the era?

          • Rick Kooi

            YOU prove the importance of the Scientific method….viewing, studying and researching theories and tossing asunder those that fail replication and retesting.
            …PROGRESS IS OVER THE BODIES OF FAILED science
            ….
            the remarkable success of red team / blue team PEER REVIEWS and publication for international testing.

          • Bart

            This has no evidentiary value. It is basically a mix of argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum. If the AGW side didn’t have logical fallacies galore, they’d have very little else.

          • Mitch_Ocean

            How about Avogadro’s constant? We can go back further to the 17th century–Newton’s laws, which hold true for nonrelativistic speeds.

          • Bart

            Some things held. A lot didn’t. The lesson is, you cannot make pleas to the length of time a hypothesis has existed in favor of the hypothesis. It must stand on its own.

          • John Samuel

            It’s a shame your statements are unsupported by evidence.

          • Rick Kooi

            *
            CO2 Concentration – Last 800,000 years
            http://scripps.ucsd.edu/progra

          • Concerned

            Your link is broken, Rick.

          • Bart

            A slick fairy tale.

          • Radiosity

            Proven physics of heat transfer between bodies in vacuum show in simple calculations that an increase in temperature of the heated lower temperature body(earth), cause a decrease in the rate of transfer from the heat source(sun). If the temperature were really rising on earth, the rate of heat transferred from the sun would simultaneously decrease by an exact equal amount.

            How does this relate to your doomsday cult? A claim saying average temperature is rising is in itself a violation of the most solid 100% consensus physics known to man. The theory of heat and the relationship to temperature is questioned by nobody with any knowledge about thermodynamics. No one would dare to question it since it has never failed.

            But here you are claiming that you know the truth. And your delusion about the truth is that on earth something impossible is happening.

          • John Samuel

            CO2 absorbs IR; known since Eunice Foote in 1856.
            Man has added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.
            How could the earth not be heating?

            Wakey wakey.

            The scientists are right. You are not even wrong.

          • Ceist Celt

            Sky Dragon Slayers often as thick as two short Plancks. 😀

          • jack dale

            So much credibility does PSI and the Sky Dragon Slayers have amongst the skeptical community?

            Lord Monckton thinks its founder John O’Sullivan is scientifically illiterate.

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            Spencer, Curry and Watts dismiss them as cranks.

            Time for the Slayers to Put Up or Shut Up
            May 10th, 2013 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
            I have allowed the Sky Dragon Slayers to post hundreds of comments here containing their views of how the climate system works (or maybe I should say how they think it doesn’t work).
            As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.
            I have repeatedly addressed these views and why they are false.

            +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

            Judith Curry

            JC comment. Grant was unaware of the previous skydragon threads at Climate Etc. The skydragons continue to expect me to debate them, their preferred forum is a radio debate. While I will never shut the door on skeptical challenges to the science and encourage contributions from those from different areas of expertise, this group beggars belief. I will continue to (barely) follow Claes Johnson’s work to see if he is able to come with anything interesting or publishable. IMO, this group has damaged the credibility of skepticism about climate change and provides a convenient target when people want to refer to “deniers” and crackpots.
            Curry also published a two part discussion of their theories.

            ++++++++++++++++++++++++

            A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds

            Anthony Watts / March 28, 2013
            I loathe having to write this story because I truly dislike giving any attention to the people who are known as the “slayers” from the “Slaying the Sky Dragon” book. They now operate under the moniker of “Principia Scientific”.
            But, somebody has to do it because some really bad mangling of the intent of a NASA press release by the “slayers” group is getting some traction. They have completely misread the NASA study and reinterpreted it for their purpose, claiming in a story titled “New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere”

          • Bart

            Not much. I have little sympathy for them. But, no less than I have for the pseudoscience known as AGW.

          • jack dale

            Please name one single academy of science on the planet that subscribes to your assertion that AGW is a pseudoscience.

          • Bart

            Argumentum ad verecundiam. You might have a point if the history of science were one of the consensus always being correct. Sadly, that is not the case at all, at all.

          • Concerned

            The argument from authority does not apply if the authority is a well established field of science. If it did, you could never believe anything about the natural world. Your computer does not work. Throw it away.

          • Bart

            Ha, ha! Wrong.

          • Concerned

            Go find Russel’s teapot, then.

            I should have added that considering a crank to be an authority is a fallacy. That is why nobody here believes a word of what you say.

          • Bart

            Russell’s Teapot is a refutation of the argument that the skeptic has the burden of proof. Nice own goal, there.

          • Concerned

            No. It is an example of the fact that an extraordinary claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That is not at all the same as saying that a skeptic does not have the burden of proof. A skeptic who claims that an established field of science is wrong, without any evidence that it is wrong, can be dismissed, too. You are dismissed.

          • Bart

            Nice try. Sorry. The point is mine.

          • jack dale

            Nope.

          • jack dale

            An appeal to authority is valid when:
            The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
            The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
            There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
            The person in question is not significantly biased.
            The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
            The authority in question must be identified.

          • Bart

            Ha, ha! Wrong.

          • jack dale

            Prove it.

          • Bart

            Let’s not kid ourselves. Your argument boils down to “Might makes right”. In a limited sense, that is true. For a time, might can establish its own conception of right. But, it’s not sustainable, and we’re all supposed to be striving for sustainability, aren’t we?

          • [Re: An appeal to authority is valid when:]

            Yup. Once the scientific consensus is formed, this consensus can then inform non-experts. After all, most non-experts don’t have the time/expertise to read peer-reviewed scientific evidence. So they have to rely on the expert consensus on those topics. That’s why, for example, expert testimony is allowed in court, but only if the expert is actually competent in the field in question and sticks to making testimony in the field in which they are competent. The non-expert judge and jury ends up relying on the expert’s testimony. It’s also why people rely on doctors, and expert specialists like oncologists, to give them medical advice.

            Philosophers have been making that point for awhile, including as it applies to climate change:

            “Philosophers studying argumentation and critical thinking inherit a tradition of treating the appeal to authority as fallacious […] (286)
            It is now widely recognized, however, that in its strict form, this position is untenable […] Quite the contrary, we are dependent on others for much of what we know, since we don’t have the time to investigate everything for ourselves, and many things are accessible only through the testimony of others (see also Hardwig 1985). As documented by Walton (1997), philosophers have therefore shifted the appeal to authority out of the category of fallacy and accepted it instead as a potentially sound form of argument (see also Goldman 2001; Tindale 1999) (287).
            […]
            When we recognize that experts know things that deserve to be heard, that appeals to expert authority aren’t fallacies, and that contributions from experts have a place in the public sphere, we have to start asking the hard questions about how these projected interactions between experts and nonexperts are going to take place (288).
            […]
            Studies of AIDS denialism in South Africa, the Intelligent Design controversies in the US, and the *global climate change* debate have focused on the techniques arguers use to manufacture purported scientific controversies in the public sphere (Ceccarelli 2011; Paroske 2009). There is here at least a partial movement towards what has been called a restoration of science to its rightful place.
            […]
            The account of expert/citizen communication starts by acknowledging the general (if ambiguous) norm: it is imprudent for the nonexpert to go against the expert view (Goodwin 1998). When a local tells a tourist that a road is dangerous, or a doctor advises a patient that smoking is harmful to her health, or *a climate scientist tells the rest of us that the world is warming because of our activities,* then the tourist or patient or we would be dumb keep going along regardless. ‘‘Only the fool would not want some expert advice in technical matters’’ (Fischer 2009, p. 139); ‘‘other things being equal, we ought to prefer the judgments of those who ‘know what they are talking about’’’ (Collins and Evans 2007, p. 2).”
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Goodwin/publication/225813438_Accounting_for_the_Appeal_to_the_Authority_of_Experts/links/55f3846508ae1d980394a125.pdf

          • jack dale

            Perhaps you should read Kuhn, especially the postscript to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in which he discusses the role of consensus in scientific paradigms.

          • Bart

            So, you are saying the consensus is always right? Must I really bring up the glaring exceptions we all know? Google it for yourself.

          • jack dale

            No I m not saying that

            And “google it” is the height of intellectual laziness.

          • Bart

            Then, what are we discussing?

          • jack dale

            Do you not know what we are discussing? There is a a consensus associated with AGW. I have never said that all consensus is correct. That flies in the face of the (r)evolution of scientific paradigms.

          • Rick Kooi

            The sheer fact that scientific integrity in the scientific method, that popular ideas are regularly trashed and discarded…speaks to why I try to follow the Science rather than sophists like you.

          • Bart

            You aren’t following science. You are following sophistry.

            Look, AGW has a lot of holes, and a lot of glaring problems. You need to put on a different set of glasses, and actively try to consider it from a different perspective than the one you want to be true.

          • Bart

            Oh, look! Another of my comments deleted. To make it look like I agree with the Sky Dragons, no doubt. Apparently, I am not allowed to express my perception of the other side.

            That’s enough of playing against the henchmen with a stacked deck. I’m outta’ here.

          • Concerned

            “I’m outta’ here.”

            Great!

          • Bart

            Yes, thinking is too hard. Now you can relax, and enjoy guilt-free the anodyne blandishments of those with whom you want to agree.

          • Rick Kooi

            SOOO, you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion?

          • Bart

            He’s on your side.

          • Radiosity

            Ok. Now you will learn something new.

            Absorption is not cause of emission. Absorption is not independently related to temperature, only emissive power is. Absorption depends on the temperature of the emitter, and the emission is independently related to the temperature of the emitter. They are related through temperature. But they are not cause and effect.

            Conclusion: increasing absorption of IR by co2 is a sign of decreasing temperature in the absorbing gas. That is proven by the s-b equation. So absorption is relative to a sinking atmospheric temperature from increasing amount of heat absorbing molecules. Whenever increased absorption is observed without the heat source getting hotter first, the only cause can be lower temperature.

            So, yeah. Absorbs IR.

            But how does that help you?

          • Rick Kooi

            Short Wave Solar Radiation
            (nearly invisible to our atmospheric gasses)
            …Warms the Earth .
            …..as a cooling mechanism Infra Red Heat Radiation is emitted from earth.
            …….Long Wave I.R. Radiation is VERY interactive with Atmospheric gases.
            Many of these gases have been measured
            (by satellites & ground spectroscopy)
            capturing and re-radiating I. R. Radiation in all directions
            ………MUCH of it back towards Earth.

            How can that NOT lead to rising temps.

            You talk about 100% Consensus after having ridiculed Global Warming Consensus.
            HMMM !

            ( Humans are NOW emitting more than 135 TIMES as much CO2
            as ALL of the volcanoes on EARTH, each & every year, COMBINED ! )
            .
            (The Unique Isotopic Signature proves that this CO2 INCREASE is from the Burning of Fossil Fuels)
            .
            “CO2 traps heat
            .
            “According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

            * In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
            * In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
            * Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing I.R. energy radiation over the 26 year period .
            .
            GOOGLE: IRIS Satellite
            GOOGLE: Japanese Satellite IMG
            Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).

            What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
            The change/reduction in outgoing radiation was consistent with Global Warming theoretical expectations.

            ** Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Global Warming.

            ((If Infra Red Energy, does not escape, it is retained in our Earth System as rising temperatures.))

            This result has been confirmed by subsequent Research papers using data from later satellites.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Griggs 2004)
            Google this SOURCE: ( Chen 2007 )
            .
            Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
            ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
            .
            When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
            Much of it makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
            .
            Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
            .
            Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Wang 2009)
            .
            A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Philipona 2004)
            .
            Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
            .
            The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
            .
            Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
            Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
            .
            The planet is accumulating heat

          • Bart

            The “isotopic signature” is garbage – it is not a unique identifier. The amount we are releasing is negligible in comparison to the natural flows. One cannot produce a proportionate imbalance to a given equilibrium state greater than one’s proportionate input to the flows that produce the balance. This is very basic. But, Climate Science has traditionally been the repository for those who could not make it in the harder science and engineering disciplines, and they failed to understand this basic requirement, and went off on a wild goose chase.

            CO2 does trap heat, but it also releases it. CO2 and, to a greater extent, H2O molecules are thermalized by other atmospheric molecules, and channel their heat to space. CO2 and H2O (and O3, but not in the IR) do impede the path of surface radiation, but they also facilitate the cooling of the atmosphere. Which effect dominates, cooling or heating, is a very complicated problem to solve. It is apparent that the solution to the problem is not yet known, as the GCMs have failed to produce accurate projections.

            But, in fact, we do know that the rate of change of CO2 concentration is proportional to temperature anomaly. It is thereby impossible for a significant sensitivity of temperature to CO2 to exist in the present climate state. It would produce a positive feedback loop which, due to the integral dependence of CO2 on temperature, could not be stabilized even by T^4 radiation, and the Earth would have reached a saturation state eons ago.

          • Concerned

            You are missing many important things in your analysis The atmosphere is a third “body”. Since it is close to earth, it is a distributed body you could think of as having multiple layers. The spectra of radiation coming to earth from the sun and leaving the earth are different. Leaving earth, it is mostly IR. The atmosphere absorbs radiation at certain IR wavelenths. The sun’s radiation is coming at us from one direction from a small body that looks nearly like a point, but the earth is radiating out to space over its entire surface in all directions Space is a low temperature region into which radiation escapes. Space is a fourth, essentially infinite “body” if you like. Finally, it is presently a transient heat transfer problem — the earth is heating because it is not in equilibrium. It needs to warm to reach an equilibrium temperature where outgoing heat is equal to incoming heat from the sun.

            In detail it is more complicated than that. The heat transfer through the atmosphere also depends on convection and cooling with altitude.

            Don’t think you have discovered a flaw in science. Learn something about it. No laws of thermodynamics are being violated.

          • Radiosity

            What? You think correlation is evidence of how co2 can violate physics?

            You have posted no evidence for anything else than your lack of understanding for temperature and heat.

      • Radiosity

        Ever heard correlation is not causation?

        You post only statistics with postulated correlation. No physics. This is a matter of physics. There are no mysteries about heat and temperature. Use the known theories instead of correlations which show only that you don´t understand what the problem is about.

    • Rick Kooi

      ERROR 1
      I can go back 30 years
      and
      the satellite data never was in sync with the ground stations.
      .
      Dr.s Christy & Spencer,
      (mouthpieces for killer coal & oil)
      ( saw to it ! )
      promised in the Late 80’s & early 90’s, that Global warming would * * VANISH
      from the public debate by 2000.
      TALK ABOUT PEE-POOR PREDICTIONS.
      .
      Then, in the early 2000’s
      …promoted by thousands upon thousands of PRESS RELEASES,
      hundred of paid interviews in right wing front media centers
      (Daily Caller, Fox)
      .
      THESE 2 ‘SKEPTICS’ invented a
      GLOBAL WARMING Pause,
      GLOBAL WARMING Hiatus,
      even a
      GLOBAL COOLING……
      ..
      THESE PREDICTIONS were based on Satellite Data
      “accidentally” reading the Cooling Temps in the STRATOSPHERE
      ….all the while
      WE were “told” that these measurements were from exclusively the TROPOSPHERE.
      .
      (Hmmmm, thus promoted Dr.’s Christy & Spencer’s ideological prediction…that Global warming would end by 2000)
      .
      …..which was actually warming substantially all the while these Denier-Scientists were presenting DISTORTED DATA…….
      .
      We are STILL correcting for accuracy.
      .
      How do you otherwise explain the FACT that 16 of the 17 Hottest Years in recorded history have occurred since 2000 ?
      The Other Hottest year was just 2 years before 2000.
      **
      USA 2016
      ONLY 2% of All Temperature RECORDS set, were cold.
      98% of Temperature RECORDS were High Temperature records.
      *
      The last 20 Years have been the WARMEST 20 Year Period in RECORDED history.
      *
      11 Science Research teams from 10 different Nations, have attempted to disprove that thesis.
      .
      (1,000’s & 1,000’s) of Ice Cores, deep sea soil samples, soil cores, tree rings & fossilized tree rings, stalagmites, fossils, CONFIRM!
      Their shared Conclusion is that this 20 year period
      is CLEARLY THE HOTTEST 20 Years in over a couple thousand of years,
      *
      No Record cold years since 1909 ! NOT ONE !
      .
      If everything is SO NORMAL in the world, wouldn’t you think we would have half of those years as record cold years?

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/
      .

      • Bart

        Nope. They were quite well in sync. Even now, they are not all that different, if you account for differing baselines. But, the US surface data sets in particular have been altered to provide a superficial suggestion of continued warming.

        • Ceist Celt

          Your faith-based beliefs in conspiracy blog pseudoscience is showing.

          • Bart

            Your descent into ad hominem to mask the weakness of your arguments is showing.

        • Rick Kooi

          World Wide NEWS, TV & Internet Media Organizations with Private Investigators, Jointly set out
          1. To Prove NASA / NOAA had distorted & lied about Temperature increases
          2. To PRove distorted Data about Global Warming / Climate Change in general.
          3. To WIN JOURNALISTIC RECOGNITION along with a-whole-lot-of-money-Honey!
          *
          These Investigative Journalists, representing Radio Stations, TV Networks,
          & Newspapers collected
          >> Tens Of Millions of data sets/per year, from over 30,000 privately owned & monitored
          Digital Ground Weather Stations:
          WMO, businesses,
          small colleges,
          thousands of TV & Radio Stations,
          Independent air fields
          & free ports,
          municipalities, small Christian Colleges
          & Monasteries etc.
          all that data, Tens of Millions of data sets
          from all around the world/ per year.
          *
          **Here there are No computer models for you to fixate upon.**
          *
          ALL
          Verified
          RISING WORLD TEMPS.
          closely Matching NOAA & NASA records down to .007C

          (Rising temps despite the fact that we Should be well on our way to the next Real Ice Age.
          *
          but why should that be an issue?
          Call any Agriculture Department
          at ANY Northern University .
          Ask about the change in season lengths over the last century!
          Univ. of Wis. and, Univ. of Mi and , Univ. of Minn. etc.
          I have.
          THEY Verified the
          *** AVERAGE FIRST HARD FROST in the Fall (end of the planting season)
          is much later(weeks later) than a century ago.
          THEY Verified the
          *** AVERAGE LAST HARD FROST IN THE SPRING (start of the planting season)
          IS Much EARLIER (weeks earlier)

          That is 1 piece of good news,
          expanded growing seasons means more profitable family farms.
          (depending upon the crop, 2 harvests per year)
          &
          This proves that Temperatures world wide are rising.

          http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
          .

          • Bart

            Cuckoo! Conspiranoid rant.

            Everyone knows globally averaged temperatures have risen. The questions are, do we have anything significant to do with it, and can we do anything significant about it? The answers are “no” and “no”.

          • [Re: “Cuckoo! Conspiranoid rant. Everyone knows globally averaged temperatures have risen.”]

            You really don’t know what you’re talking about…

            “Reflecting a divide within the GOP, conservative Republicans stand out as the only ideological group in which a majority (56%) says that there is not solid evidence of a rise in the earth’s temperature (a 61% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say Earth is warming).”
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/

            [Re: “The questions are, do we have anything significant to do with it, and can we do anything significant about it? The answers are “no” and “no”.”]

            Actually, we have quite a bit to do with it. As the IPCC noted, it is extremely likely humans caused most of the post-1950s global warming. There are multiple lines of evidence supporting that conclusion. In fact, you can infer that conclusion from the following 2 claims:

            1) Humans caused the vast majority of the increase in CO2 levels from the later 1800s to the present.
            2) Increased CO2 levels caused most of the post-1950s global warming.

            Claim 1 is supported by multiple lines of evidence, such as carbon isotope ratios for atmospheric CO2, decreased proportion on O2 in the atmosphere, and evidence against non-anthropogenic sources as a cause for most of the rise.
            Claim 2 is supported by multiple lines of evidence, such as stratospheric cooling, mesospheric cooling, thermospheric cooling, paleoclimate estimates of climate sensitivity, and exclusion of other plausible causes of long-term warming (such as black carbon aerosols or an long-term increase in TSI).

            Anyway, we can do something about global warming. Whether we want to politically or economically, is another matter. So, for instance, if we decrease greenhouse gas emissions by X amount, then that’s Y less global warming that will occur (where Y equals the amount of global warming caused by X amount of greenhouse gases). The only way you can deny that, is if you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.
            By the way, the following nifty paper illustrates the atmospheric response to changes in anthropogenic CO2 emissions:
            “Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends”

          • Bart

            “You really don’t know what you’re talking about…”

            Oh yes, yes I do. That leaves an alternative, which you need to explore.

          • [Re: “Oh yes, yes I do. That leaves an alternative, which you need to explore.”]

            This will be my final confirmation of whether you’re an honest inquirer, or whether you’re just a lying denialist unwilling to change your position in response to evidence.

            You said:
            “Everyone knows globally averaged temperatures have risen.”

            I pointed out a source debunking your claim:
            “Reflecting a divide within the GOP, conservative Republicans stand out as the only ideological group in which a majority (56%) says that there is not solid evidence of a rise in the earth’s temperature (a 61% majority of moderate and liberal Republicans say Earth is warming).”
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/

            So do you retract your claim that:
            “Everyone knows globally averaged temperatures have risen.”

            I have a pretty good idea of what’s going to happen now.

          • Bart

            “Lying Denialist”? Why am I even discussing anything with such a bigot?

          • Bart

            Not interested in your gotcha games. If you have any scientific arguments to make, make them. Otherwise, sayonara, you Holocaust diminishing worm.

          • [Re: “Otherwise, sayonara, you Holocaust diminishing worm.”]
            [Re: “Why am I even discussing anything with such a bigot?”]

            Thanks for showing I was right about what was going to happen.

          • Bart

            Sure you were. you know perfectly well I am talking about scientifically minded people. I have stated clearly that temperatures have risen. But, it isn’t because of CO2.

            You want to argue against straw men, be my guest. Just, include me out.

          • jack dale

            An hour ago you said you were leaving.

          • Bart

            I did. Got pulled back in by an alert from disgus. Had to correct Atomsk. Exponential rise… hee, hee.

      • Radiosity

        There is absolutely no scientific support for the claim that water vapor and/or co2 can increase the temperature of the heat source that heats it. On the contrary, all experiments and measurements show that they decrease the temperature of their heat source.

        Be before you blanket-people starts chanting “it´s like a blanket”, have a look here:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

        “Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”

        The exact same mechanism you say heat the earth, absorption of heat from the heat source in cold air, is what a blanket prevent. The interaction of emitted heat from the surface and air, is proven physics in experiment and in application throughout modern civilization, to be the exact opposite of what climate science claims.

        Stop making shit up and fiddling with data to violate physics.

        • Ceist Celt

          Sky Dragon Slayer alert.

        • [Re: “There is absolutely no scientific support for the claim that water vapor and/or co2 can increase the temperature of the heat source that heats it. On the contrary, all experiments and measurements show that they decrease the temperature of their heat source.”]

          You don’t seem to understand the greenhouse gas effect. The following sources should help you with that:

          The greenhouse gas effect for the laymen:https://t.co/N33IAUrNd3https://t.co/hM4uZbQYnXhttps://t.co/nmO6i0R40Ihttps://t.co/EPQNhK5J9l— Atomsk's Sanakan (@AtomsksSanakan) June 16, 2017

          https://twitter.com/AtomsksSanakan/status/875856220674039809

          Here’s a laymen’s level summary:
          “However, the public virtually never sees cogent scientific explanations of global warming’s mechanism. If you were to explain its chemical/physical mechanism, could you? Please try this for 40 seconds before reading further.
          If you are like virtually all of our pilot studies’ subjects, you could not answer our question with even basic accuracy. Yet we might expect scientifically literate people to produce a brief, mechanistic, global warming explanation—as in these 35 words: *“Earth transforms sunlight’s visible light energy into infrared light energy, which leaves Earth slowly because it is absorbed by greenhouse gases. When people produce greenhouse gases, energy leaves Earth even more slowly—raising Earth’s temperature.””*
          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12187/full

          Also see:
          “The Irrelevance of Saturation: Why Carbon Dioxide Matters”
          http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html

          • Rick Kooi

            ( Humans are NOW emitting more than 135 TIMES as much CO2 as ALL of the volcanoes on EARTH, each & every year, COMBINED ! )
            (The Unique Isotopic Signature proves that this CO2 INCREASE is from the Burning of Fossil Fuels)
            .
            CO2 traps heat
            .
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/scientists-just-documented-a-massive-melt-event-on-the-surface-of-antarctica/?wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
            .
            According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

            * In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
            * In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
            * Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing I.R. energy radiation over the 26 year period .
            .
            GOOGLE: IRIS Satellite
            GOOGLE: Japanese Satellite IMG
            Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).

            What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
            The change/reduction in outgoing radiation was consistent with Global Warming theoretical expectations.

            ** Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect” and Global Warming.

            ((If Infra Red Energy, does not escape, it is retained in our Earth System as rising temperatures.))

            This result has been confirmed by subsequent Research papers using data from later satellites.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Griggs 2004)
            Google this SOURCE: ( Chen 2007 )
            .
            Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
            ‘Brightness temperature’ indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
            .
            When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
            Much of it makes its way back to the earth’s surface.
            .
            Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
            .
            Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Wang 2009)
            .
            A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Philipona 2004)
            .
            Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
            .
            The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.”
            .
            Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
            Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases.
            .
            Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
            .
            The planet is accumulating heat

          • Bart

            I do not agree with Radiosity – diatomic molecules in the atmosphere can act to heat the surface. However, it is not a linear function with concentration, and there is a point of diminishing returns. CO2 is tapped out in terms of its heating potential in the present climate state.

            The sources you cite actually support this claim. The decrease in TOA IR radiation relative to other bands is no greater than would be expected with rising temperature from whatever source. Not all bands have the same sensitivity with respect to temperature. Take the partial derivative of the Planck distribution with respect to temperature. You will find the shape of the curve matches the shape of the differential curve from the satellites.

          • [Re: “However, it is not a linear function with concentration, and there is a point of diminishing returns. CO2 is tapped out in terms of its heating potential in the present climate state.”]

            Nonsense.

            Atmospheric CO2 is currently increasing at a roughly exponential rate. This means that the CO2-induced anthropogenic warming ends up being close to linear, even if one takes into account the logarithmic relationship between CO2 increases and temperature increases.

            The exponential CO2 increase is shown in sources such as:
            http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-1.html
            “Atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years: A high-resolution record from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Divide ice core”

            The nearly linear rate of anthropogenic warming (largely from anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is shown in sources such as:
            “Deducing Multidecadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis”
            “The Origin and Limits of the Near Proportionality between Climate Warming and Cumulative CO2 Emissions”
            “The global warming hiatus — a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation”
            “Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake”
            “Return periods of global climate fluctuations and the pause”
            “Using data to attribute episodes of warming and cooling in instrumental records”
            “The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions”
            “The sensitivity of the proportionality between temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions to ocean mixing”

            For further background at a laymen’s level, see:
            https://skepticalscience.com/C02-emissions-vs-Temperature-growth.html

            Also see:
            “The Irrelevance of Saturation: Why Carbon Dioxide Matters”
            http://bartonlevenson.com/Saturation.html

            The following sources illustrate how increase CO2 levels led to global warming, even when CO2 levels were comparable to our near-future conditions:
            “Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records”
            “Addendum: Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records”
            “Climate Sensitivity in the Geologic Past”

            [Re: “The decrease in TOA IR radiation relative to other bands is no greater than would be expected with rising temperature from whatever source. Not all bands have the same sensitivity with respect to temperature. Take the partial derivative of the Planck distribution with respect to temperature. You will find the shape of the curve matches the shape of the differential curve from the satellites.”]

            Are you talking about the data that shows increased radiative forcing from CO2 within specific wavelengths?

            I suggest you read:
            “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010” (also see the citation to “Harries et al.8” in the paper)
            “Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997”

            If you want an explanation at a laymen’s level, then I suggest you watch:
            “Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions – 2012 AGU Fall Meeting” from 9:13 to 10:28
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RICBu_P8JWI&t=578s

          • Bart

            “This means that the CO2-induced anthropogenic warming ends up being close to linear, even if one takes into account the logarithmic relationship between CO2 increases and temperature increases.”

            Yes, any smooth function can be linearized in the neighborhood of a particular value. But, the slope of the linear term is not necessarily significant. What we are seeing is that it is not significant. It isn’t the purported logarithmic relationship. It is something more stunted. The current sensitivity of temperature to CO2 is virtually nil.

            The increase in atmospheric concentration has not been exponential. It has been approximately quadratic. There is little to no observability of higher order polynomial terms. In fact, it is following, quite faithfully, the integral of temperature:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:24/plot/hadcrut4sh/offset:0.45/scale:0.22/from:1958

            Even more obviously with the higher quality satellite data. Up to now, it has been an especially good match with the RSS data, which makes it all the more sad that they have decided to knuckle under with this latest “revision”:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/offset:0.6/scale:0.22

            Temperatures have been rising more or less linearly, and CO2 concentration has, consistently, been rising essentially quadratically. All temperature driven. Human inputs have little impact.

            I don’t need layman’s treacle, thank you very much. I suggest you read your sources with a little less acceptance of what is said, and more attention to the actual analysis. Start pulling on the loose strings, and you will soon unravel the entire garment.

          • jack dale

            “Temperatures have been rising more or less linearly,” That would be atmospheric temperatures. You are need to consider ocean heat content.

          • Bart

            And, if that straw fails you, what will you grasp next?

          • jack dale

            The topic is global warming. 70% of the global surface is water which is a great conductor of heat.

          • Bart

            Not so great. Very weak between the ocean layers. And, IR does not penetrate hardly at all.

          • Concerned

            “IR does not penetrate hardly at all.”

            You have it backwards. Oceans are not heated by IR. They are heated by the sun. The greenhouse effect causes oceans to cool less, so more heat is retained.

          • Bart

            Facepalm… The oceans are not primarily cooled by radiative transfer.

          • [Re: “The increase in atmospheric concentration has not been exponential.”]

            You excluded the pre-1960 data that sources the exponential rise, even though that was shown in the sources cited to you. Same for your exclusion of the pre-1960 warming, along with you excluding every temperature analysis other than the old version of RSS lower tropospheric temperature (ex: you ignored radiosonde records, all the ocean temperature records [buoys, ships satellites, etc.], all the land temperature records, the NOAA satellite analysis, the UAH satellite analysis, the UW satellite analysis, etc.).

            Nice job cherry-picking. Who are you trying to fool with your nonsense?

            [Re: “All temperature driven.”]

            You were already shown to be wrong on this. Your only reply was a single deleted sentence saying something like “that’s idiotic”. Apparently the moderators don’t tolerate that. Anyone can search for the term “Humlum” to find my rebuttal to your claim.

            Based on your posting habits, the following is a pretty good summary of how you operate (especially the last sentence):

            “Second, particularly with the so-called “factual” arguments against global warming, the reader is struck by the number of times the same individuals post the same commentary for multiple articles over many weeks, sometimes even months. Even though the foundation of their points (or the “authorities” to whom they referred) was seemingly effectively critiqued by other posters, those same “authorities” and arguments were returned to again and again. After reading thousands of postings, we concluded that the persistent deniers were not motivated by a desire to learn more about global warming (and possibly reframe their perspective), but were posting with the intent of persuading the unknowledgeable and casual reader that the associated article, and hence global warming, was not to be taken seriously.”
            http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ842771.pdf

          • Bart

            Pre-1958 data are not reliable. Since reliable measurements became available, the rise is clearly at-best quadratic, and is caused by temperature dependent processes. There is no doubt about it. The data are very clear. The rate of CO2 concentration is proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly. It’s an inescapable fact.

            And, that has been the era of the lion’s share of the observed rise from the purported pre-industrial level. We do not need to speculate on what might have come before. The observation stands on its own.

            I have cited nobody. You did. And, went off on a tear of logical fallacies, stamping your foot and insisting you are right, darn it!

            Sorry, no. Open your eyes.

          • [Re: “Pre-1958 data are not reliable.”]

            Baseless claim for which you’ve provided no support. Also, you ignored most of the post-1958 data, as per your cherry-picking. All you did was cherry-picking an outdated RSS analysis, that RSS itself admits is flawed. You did this to dodge evidence of:
            1) The near-exponential increase in CO2 levels
            2) The nearly-linear amount of warming
            3) Evidence of increased CO2 levels causing warming, even in conditions with CO2-levels similar to our near-future levels.

            [Re: “is caused by temperature dependent processes.”]

            Your Humlum-level temperature argument was already debunked. You still have no cogent response.

            [Re: “I have cited nobody.”]

            You cited the blog “WoodForTrees” in order to discuss the old RSS TLT analysis. You rely on blogs, since you apparently can’t be bothered to address reputable scientific sources (such as scientific papers on the old RSS TLT analysis). Fairly typical of denialists.

          • [Re: “2) The nearly-linear amount of warming”]

            Typo. I meant:
            “2) The nearly-linear amount of CO2-induced warming”

          • Bart

            1) The near-exponential increase in CO2 levels

            It hasn’t been exponential, it has been proportional to appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.

            2) The nearly-linear amount of warming

            I’ve not tried to dodge this in any way, shape, or form. I have merely pointed out that it is inconsistent with being induced by CO2 levels.

            Temperatures have followed a very consistent pattern for over 100 years: a long term rise, superimposed with an approximately 65 year cyclical pattern. Here is the cyclical pattern, to which we are returning after the recent monster El Nino:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/detrend:0.8

            This rise from 1910 to 1945 was almost precisely the rise from 1970 to 2005:

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:2005/trend

            This pattern was laid in well before the mid-century rapid rise in CO2 concentration. As cause must precede effect, it was not caused by CO2 rise.

            If you remove that pattern from the data, there is very little else that could be attributed to rising CO2. The impact is utterly negligible.

            3) Evidence of increased CO2 levels causing warming, even in conditions with CO2-levels similar to our near-future levels.

            There is no such evidence. Only rationalizations, and post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.

          • Concerned

            “CO2 is tapped out in terms of its heating potential”

            CO2 does not heat the earth. It reduces the cooling of the earth by causing less heat to be radiated out to space — its about the same net effect but with a subtle difference in detail.

            CO2 may be virtually saturated lower in the atmosphere. but that does not impede radiation heat transfer, which goes in 3-D, especially up the column, assisted buy convection and affected by lapse rate. Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases its concentration, which raises the altitude at which CO2 is thin enough to radiate to space. Increased effective radiation altitude results in lower temperature of the radiation to space, so the heat flux out to space is less.

            Also, there is this effect called pressure broadening that increases the width of the absorption band.

            Your statement “CO2 is tapped out” is nonsense.

          • Bart

            Assertion after assertion. The evidence is clear. The current sensitivity is virtually nil. You are just peddling a narrative. It is a Just So story.

          • Concerned

            Here are some sources you could read that back up my statements.

            What is the best description of the greenhouse effect?
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/what-is-the-best-description-of-the-greenhouse-effect/

            Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect
            https://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

            Pressure broadening:
            “The absorption bands are also “smeared out” when gas molecules interact with each other, a phenomenon called pressure broadening.”

            See also “band saturation”
            “The center of an absorption band gets saturated as the gas gets more
            concentrated, but the band gets fatter.”

            both from “Greenhouse Gases”
            http://forecast.uchicago.edu/chapter4.pdf

            Refutation of the saturation argument.
            https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect-advanced.htm

            Go ahead. Laugh like a hyena.

          • Bart

            Yes, other narrative peddling “sources”. Not at all interested parties. Perish the thought!

            Look, the narrative is broken. The GCMs are running hot. The party’s over. Time to come back to reality.

          • Concerned

            “narrative peddling “sources””

            In other words, every article about science that gives information contrary to your science-denial belief is wrong, and you know that without reading it. What do you have to support your blatantly ignorant and false assertion that “CO2 is tapped out”? Let’s see a peer reviewed article by a reputable scientist in a prestigious journal. Are scientists wrong because they are paid?

          • Bart

            In others words, still peddling the same assertions that have produced models which run hot, i.e., which have been falsified.

            You can try to hide behind “peer review” as you like. But, we all know it is “pal review”, and it is a crutch you use because you cannot argue for yourself.

        • Concerned

          “There is absolutely no scientific support for the claim that water vapor
          and/or co2 can increase the temperature of the heat source that heats
          it.”

          But that is not the claim. You made that up.

    • Ceist Celt

      Satellite data is adjusted to account for things like orbital decay. You seem to be upset that adjustments aren’t being made for satellite orbits ‘falling upwards’ as well as downwards.

      • Bart

        You seem to think these are the only adjustments possible.

        • Ceist Celt

          Whoosh. The joke went right over your head.

          • Bart

            You seem to think wasting trillions of dollars a year on a Chicken Little fantasy is a joke.

      • David Rice

        “Satellite data is adjusted to account for things like orbital decay.”

        In fact, RSS was told how to fix the problem more than 14 years ago.

    • David Rice

      “… to eliminate the pause….”

      No scientists ever saw this “pause” of yours. How cold they “eliminate” something your cultists fabricated?

      • Gonzo

        [No scientists ever saw this “pause” of yours.] Funny! The IPCC, MET, BOM all recognized the pause until they didn’t. Please try and keep up.

        • jack dale

          The IPCC put “hiatus” in quotes.
          “Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST
          (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). “

          • Gonzo

            What’s your point? ALL major climate/weather agencies accepted the pause until Karl jiggered the bucket/intake data. Just think for one second (i know that’s hard for you). Without all of these after the fact adjustments what would the trend be? Without the adjustments they’d all be out of a job. Follow the money.

          • Bart

            That tends to happen at a plateau. It’s pretty much tautological.

          • jack dale

            It is more like a step. Except this plateau had a positive slope.

          • Bart

            Statistically indistinguishable from zero.

          • jack dale

            You might be interested in Carl Mears’ take on that.

            The Recent Slowing in the Rise of Global Temperatures
            Authors: Carl Mears, Vice President RSS

            Date Added: Monday, September 22, 2014

            Recently, a number of articles in the mainstream press have pointed out that there appears to have been little or no change in globally averaged temperature over the last two decades. Because of this, we are getting a lot of questions along the lines of “I saw this plot on a denialist web site. Is this really your data?” While some of these reports have “cherry-picked”their end points to make their evidence seem even stronger, there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets. For example, the figure below is a plot of the temperature anomaly (departure from normal) of the lower troposphere over the past 35 years from the RSS “Temperature Lower Troposphere” (TLT) dataset. For this plot we have averaged over almost the entire globe, from 80S to 80N, and used the entire TLT dataset, starting from 1979. >(The denialists really like to fit trends starting in1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope.)

            http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

          • Bart

            Why would you imagine I have any interest in that? Oh, right. Because you’re a herd animal, and you can’t conceive of anyone not seeking a leader, and assuming their place in the herd.

          • Concerned

            “Why would you imagine I have any interest in that?”

            Possibly because he was giving you credit (unfounded) for a modicum of critical thinking.

          • Bart

            Umm, no, I don’t think so. It is all about citing authorities with you guys. You apparently cannot think for yourselves.

          • Concerned

            “I don’t think so”… “citing authorities”… “cannot think for yourselves”

            In other words, you have nothing to support your arguments other than idle thoughts.

            Earth to Bart! This article is about the fact that satellite data now agree with the surface temperature data. They both show a slowdown but no pause. The slowdown was not statistically significant, and it is explainable by internal variations and heating of the oceans.

            Would you to see peer-reviewed sources for that last sentence of mine, or are science sources just something else you will refuse to look at and lie about?

          • Bart

            Sure, they now agree. They agreed before either were “adjusted”, too. Agreement is not a metric of truth. In fact, it more often indicates someone has their thumb on the scale.

          • jack dale

            I gather it does not suit your narrative. There are none so blind ….

        • Rick Kooi

          almost exclusively based on CHRISTY and SPENCER….both of whom declared authoritatively to their fellow scientists that GLOBAL WARMING would CEASE to be a factor in science by 2000.

          OOOPS ! talk about a pee-poor prediction.

          • Gonzo

            Talk about oblivious. RSS until this “groudbreaking” adjustment was in agreement with UAH. So one more time. All major agencies accepted the pause.

          • Bart

            I saved a plot last year just to make sure it didn’t go down the memory hole. All major sets, with the exception of GISS which had already adopted the squirrely ship bucket “adjustments”, were in close agreement modulo the arbitrary baselines.

            http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/offset%200.2_zps9bmbmsvj.png

    • Mitch_Ocean

      You missed the part when John Christy claimed that his satellite data showed cooling, back in the early 1990’s, until it was shown that this all resulted from errors in his analysis. He has continually had to revise his data upward, since he tends to bias his data cool.

      • Rick Kooi

        Christy & Spencer had a formulaic error in their DATA which allowed the sat. to gather data from not just the Troposphere but also the much cooler Stratosphere….thus allowing for the thousands and thousands of press releases CHRISTY & SPENCER sent out to POPULARIZE their GLOBAL WARMING PAUSE….then their GLOBAL WARMING HIATUS….and then their GLOBAL COOLING…

        SO, YES, their satellite data and conclusions have had many revisions

        • Bart

          Corrected more than a decade ago. Beating this drum at this point in time is fundamentally dishonest.

  • Rick Kooi

    7500 years ago,
    THIS Inter Glacial Warm Period PEAKED in TEMPERATURE.
    Since Then
    Temperatures have slowly fallen toward the next ICE AGE (glaciation).
    .
    GOOGLE: Milankovitch Cycles—–See the cause of Climate Change until 1750-1800.

    ( Much of the last 1000 years is called “THE LITTLE ICE AGE” )
    .
    THAT ALL CAME TO AN END 1750-1800 !
    .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
    .
    The real problem is the fact that temperatures are NOW rising.
    .
    GREEN HOUSE GASES have captured enough escaping Infra Red Radiation & Re-Radiated much of that Heat Radiation back toward Earth.

    Temps. are rising faster than life can adapt. The Permian Extinction was the worst mass extinction in the history of the Earth. It was largely generated by a rapid rise in temperature.
    .
    NATURAL CYCLES
    Temp. Changes 7500 years 1C on average.
    .
    HUMAN CHANGES
    From 1800’s to 2016, 1.19 C+ temperature rise.

    > The Permian Extinction wiped out 96% marine species & 76% of land species. > is 1.19C degree every 130+ years.
    .
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HNjoaXkAM4EqU.jpg

    http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

    *
    CO2 Concentration – Last 800,000 years
    http://scripps.ucsd.edu/progra

    • David Rice

      “7500 years ago….”

      Indeed, the problem is human-caused climate change now, not temperature variations in the past. But deniers want people to believe the current crisis is some how not a problem because tens of thousands of years ago climates changed.

      • Rick Kooi

        The point is temperatures have been slowly falling for 7500 years….
        the last 1000 or so of those years have EVEN been called the LITTLE ICE AGE.
        FALLING TEMPS ended 1750-1800.
        RISING Temps started in the 1800’s. in spits and spurts…but rising !

        THE BIG QUESTION IS WHAT STOPPED EARTH’s most powerful natural cycle ? ?
        ….
        as EARTH’s Orbit continues to edge farther from the sun….the source of earth’s heat.
        .
        We Should STILL be falling into that next ice age.
        .
        The only explanation that fits this set of circumstances….GREEN HOUSE GASES are capturing more and more ENERGY
        as they INCREASE MORE AND MORE.

        • Bart

          Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Process of elimination only works when you have a full set of alternatives. “I do not know of any other potential cause” is not a compelling argument.

    • Erik Pedersen

      Since the depth of the ice age, about 350 years ago, the global temperature has had an increasing trend, not because of human activity but for natural reasons.
      Our atmosphere consists of about 400 ppm CO2 of which the anthropogenic proportion is only 4%. It will then be 16 ppm. Is it logical that these 16 ppm cause harmful climate changes but that 384 ppm does not? A logical shortcoming here …

      • jack dale

        Using carbon isotope analysis, the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

        • Bart

          Merely consistent. Necessary, but not sufficient condition. The carbon isotope measure is the outcome of a complex diffusion process that is not necessarily strongly coupled with the major source.

          There are potentially other low dC13 sources that have not been accounted for.

          There is also a dilution effect. It is like dumping a bunch of dye in a feed creek, noticing that the pond takes on a blue tinge, and then proclaiming that the pond level is established by the dye.

          • jack dale

            “There are potentially other low dC13 sources that have not been accounted for.”

            Such as?

            Your last paragraph is a non sequitur.

          • Bart

            It isn’t non sequitur. It is logic. Try it sometime.

            As for the other, I do not have to provide any. Oh, I could, but then we’d just be taking this argument to another level of disagreement, and it would prove pointless. Your argument is a formal syllogistic fallacy. Enough said.

          • jack dale

            “As for the other, I can not provide any.” Fixed it for you.

          • [Re: “There are potentially other low dC13 sources that have not been accounted for.”]

            As ridiculous as an AIDS denialist saying:
            “There are potentially other causes of AIDS that have not been accounted for.”

            Sorry, but no. You don’t get to make up some hypothetical cause that you present no evidence for, just so you can dodge well-evidenced causes. And just because something is POSSIBLE (or could “potentially” be the case), that does not mean it’s plausible, likely, or worth taking seriously. After all, the moon could “potentially” be made of cheese and the scientists are in a conspiracy to hide that fact from us (so they can have all the cheesy goodness for themselves). That idea has just as much evidence as your made-up conjecture about an alternative source of C13.

            Philosophy of science has a name for what you’re doing:
            Inventing ad hoc hypotheses (without supporting evidence) in order to evade falsification.

          • Bart

            Sorry, no. You don’t get to pin the blame on some arbitrary cause without having greater knowledge of all possible causes. This is the sort of reasoning that brought us bloodletting and throwing virgins into volcanoes. We can’t imagine any other cause for the illness than bad blood. We can’t imagine any other cause for the drought than angry gods.

            The basic problem is that our knowledge of the carbon cycle is not nearly good enough to establish a reasonably comprehensive basis for what is possible and what is not.

            Philosophy of science has a name for what you are doing: Formal Syllogistic Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term.

            A) Anthro CO2 is low 13C
            B) Measurements show atmospheric CO2 has decreasing 13C
            C) Therefore anthro CO2 is driving atmospheric CO2

            There is a missing middle term. Other drivers are assumed not to exist just because they are unknown in the present state of knowledge. But, that state of knowledge is not particularly good.

          • jack dale

            “Other drivers are assumed not to exist just because they are unknown.”

            Nope. Other GHGs are recognized, as are natural fluctuations.

          • Bart

            Perhaps you need to look up the definition of “comprehensive”.

          • jack dale

            Nope.

          • Bart

            Ignorance is bliss.

          • jack dale

            Then you must be ecstatic.

          • Bart

            Clinically depressed. After all we have learned, after all science has taught us, we are collectively incapable of breaking through the barrier of primitive intuition. AGW is not science. It is wishful thinking.

          • [Re: “You don’t get to pin the blame on some arbitrary cause without having greater knowledge of all possible causes.”]

            First, the cause isn’t arbitrary, since we have scientific evidence showing the cause does what we claim it does.

            Second, one does not need to have knowledge of all possible causes, in order to infer causation. For example, we don’t know all possible causes of immunodeficiency syndromes. That doesn’t stop us from justifiably inferring that HIV causes AIDS. And we don’t know all possible causes of humans dying. That does not stop us from justifiably inferring that a particular defendant killed the victim in a particular way. And the police don’t know all possible causes of forest fires. That does not stop the police from justifiably inferring that a particular forest fire was caused by arson.
            The following sources will explain this to you in the context of climate science, at a laymen’s level:

            “These examples illustrate that different climate changes in the past had different causes. The fact that natural factors caused climate changes in the past does not mean that the current climate change is natural. By analogy, the fact that forest fires have long been caused naturally by lightning strikes does not mean that fires cannot also be caused by a careless camper.”
            https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html

            “Critics have argued that, if temperatures were as warm or warmer than current conditions before the onset of anthropogenic forcing, this would provide evidence that “natural” fluctuations alone could explain current conditions, since greenhouse gases were only ~280 ppmv during Medieval time (versus 400 ppmv today).
            […]
            With the increase in irradiance and a decline in explosive volcanism in the early 20th century, global temperatures might then have returned to an unperturbed level similar to that of the MQP [Medieval Quiet Period], but *the rapid rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gases propelled temperatures well beyond that level, as positive anthropogenic radiative forcing overwhelmed natural variability (Myhre et al., 2013).”*
            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291523102_The_Medieval_Quiet_Period

            [Re: “Philosophy of science has a name for what you are doing: Formal Syllogistic Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term”]

            You’re messing up badly here; you’re applying a fallacy from DEDUCTIVE reasoning, when we’re dealing with ABDUCTIVE reasoning. That makes no sense. It’d be as silly as saying that inductive logic fails, because it doesn’t follow the criteria of deductive logic (such as premises guaranteeing the truth of the inferred conclusion). Please don’t try to bluff on philosophy, if you don’t know what we’re doing. Here are two sources that might help on this (these sources were helpful to me in undergrad and during graduate school):
            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/
            https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/

            Anyway, what we’re dealing with here is abductive logic, under the framework of inference to the best explanation. In that context, one argues for causal explanations based on a number of criteria, such as predictive power, explanatory power, explanatory scope, ontological parsimony, prior probability (if you’re operating in a Bayesian framework), minimum number of ad hoc assumptions, etc. One problem with your causal reasoning, is that it resorts to unsupported, ad hoc assumptions that evade falsification and rob your causal explanation of predictive power. And inference to the best explanation (in the framework of abductive logic) does not require you to know all possible causes, in contrast to what you claimed.

          • Bart

            “First, the cause isn’t arbitrary, since we have scientific evidence showing the cause does what we claim it does.”

            No, you don’t. You merely have an inference.

            “That doesn’t stop us from justifiably inferring that HIV causes AIDS.”

            Red herring alert. The HIV-AIDS link has been thoroughly confirmed in the four decades since the AIDS epidemic struck. People are being kept alive today due to that knowledge.

            It is cut and dried. The link between anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not even remotely in the same class.

            “Anyway, what we’re dealing with here is abductive logic, under the framework of inference to the best explanation.”

            This is gibberish. It is rationalizing what you want to be true.

          • [Re: “No, you don’t. You merely have an inference.”]

            An inference based on evidence, just like plenty of other inferences in science. What you’re doing is using flawed reasoning to avoid making the evidence-based inference; it’s akin to the flawed reasoning AIDS denialists use to avoid the evidence-based inference that HIV causes AIDS.

            [Re: “Red herring alert. The HIV-AIDS link has been thoroughly confirmed in the four decades since the AIDS epidemic struck. People are being kept alive today due to that knowledge.”]

            Not a red herring at all.

            By your fallacious reasoning, we don’t know that HIV causes AIDS, since we don’t know all causes of immunodeficiency syndromes. After all, that’s the sort of fallacious reasoning you use to claim that we don’t know the cause of decreased C13 levels, simply because we don’t know all possible causes of changes in C13 levels. You engage in special pleading when you accept that reasoning in the case of C13, but not in the case HIV/AIDS. And the HIV/AIDS example serves as a reductio ad absurdum that exposed your flawed reasoning.

            That was the point of the comparison. Nothing you said rebuts that. All you’ve done is pretend that the point of analogy was the number of lives saved.

            [Re: “It is cut and dried. The link between anthropogenic emissions and atmospheric concentration of CO2 is not even remotely in the same class.”]

            No, it’s in the same class. That’s why there’s an evidence-based scientific consensus on both of HIV/AIDS and CO2-induced anthropogenic climate change. And that’s why, for example, denialists like you dodge the relevant evidence, using the same fallacious tactics AIDS denialists use to dodge the evidence showing that HIV causes AIDS. That’s shown in sources such as:

            “Science denial: a guide for scientists”
            “How the growth of denialism undermines public health”
            “Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?”
            “Science denial as a form of pseudoscience”
            “Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate”
            “Science denial and the science classroom”

            [Re: “This is gibberish. It is rationalizing what you want to be true.”]

            It’s not “gibberish” just because you’re ignorant of what “abductive logic” and “inference to the best explanation” are. You’re akin to a elementary school who thinks “DNA” is gibberish, because the child doesn’t know what DNA is. If you don’t know, then ASK, as opposed to assuming words you don’t understand are “gibberish”.

          • Bart

            No. My stance is based on the evidence. It is very clear that CO2 levels are overwhelmingly determined by temperatures. Your claim, that diminished 13C content implies anthropogenic forcing is an argument from consistency. But, consistency is always merely necessary, not sufficient. My evidence is necessary and sufficient.

            “Not a red herring at all.”

            Glowing, brightly flashing, neon red.

            “It’s not “gibberish”…”

            It is gibberish.

          • [Re: “My stance is based on the evidence. It is very clear that CO2 levels are overwhelmingly determined by temperatures.”]

            You were already debunked on this. You’re running the same nonsensical argument from Humlum et. al.:

            “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature”
            https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J-E_Solheim/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature/links/56e4581508ae68afa1106148.pdf

            Humlum et. al. is flawed and it fails to show that the oceans (as opposed to humans) are responsible for the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. This has been pointed out by a number of other researchers.

            This includes Richardson:
            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

            Masters and Benestad:
            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature””
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

            Along with Kern and Leuenberger:
            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” Humlum et al. [Glob. Planet. Change 100: 51–69.]: Isotopes ignored”
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001562

            The conclusion of Humlum et. al. makes no sense for a number of reasons. The sources above discuss some of these reasons. For example:

            1) Oceans are acting as net uptakers of CO2, which conflicts with Humlum et. al.’s claim that the oceans are acting as net releasers of CO2 and are thus cause the increase in atmospheric CO2.
            2) Humlum et. al’s results don’t make sense in light of the carbon isotope data for atmospheric CO2.
            3) They didn’t adequately account for the role of ENSO (i.e. El Nino and Lan Nina) in their data, which skewed their results. When this oversight is corrected, Humlum et. al.’s conclusion fails. For more on this, see:
            “On the Relationship between Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature”

            Hence why scientists say CO2 caused the recent warming, not the other way around. For example:
            “On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature”

            Let me know when you have a sensible response to that.

          • Bart

            Nope. Your arguments are circular and ad ignorantiam.

            Open your eyes. Stop denying what is right in front of them.

          • [Re: “Nope. Your arguments are circular and ad ignorantiam.”]

            Still waiting on your sensible response to the evidence I cited. So far, you seem to have nothing.

          • Bart

            I thought it was so self evident, it was hardly worth addressing. Really poor (I’ll avoid the D word and maybe won’t get censored) thinking:

            1) Oceans are acting as net uptakers of CO2…

            Begging the question. There is no evidence establishing this.

            2) Humlum et. al’s results don’t make sense in light of the carbon isotope data for atmospheric CO2.

            This isn’t an argument against the premise, but against your understanding.

            3) They didn’t adequately account for the role of ENSO (i.e. El Nino and Lan Nina) in their data, which skewed their results. When this oversight is corrected, Humlum et. al.’s conclusion fails.

            The data fit every nook and cranny, including El Nino and La Nina events. With ENSO, without ENSO, the rate of change of concentration always is proportional to the appropriately baselined temperature anomaly.

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/derivative/mean:12/from:1979/plot/rss/offset:0.6/scale:0.22

            I do not know why so many people go so far out of their way to deny what is right in front of their eyes. I only know that they do. Sad.

          • Radiosity

            “Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim”

            Now make a search for the relation between carbon dioxide and temperature, which excludes climate science and focus on the physics.

            Try to find any similar claims outside of your cult. I assure you, you will not find anything at all. This is a delusion contained only in the greenhouse.

          • Radiosity

            So, denying AIDS and denying that dry ice creates energy is equal?

            Do you know that there is absolutely 0 support for the claim that co2 can increase the power of the heat source that heats the co2?

            This is what you base your faith on. An unproven contradiction to all known principles of heat and temperature. And you say that other people deny science.

            Amazing.

          • Radiosity

            Aah, you mean like saying that cold air and dry ice is a heat source? I guess you have evidence for how cold air heats hot surfaces?

            I think blankets and magic is involved? Right?

      • Rick Kooi

        what an amazingly dumb comment

        The ‘depth of the ice age’ about “350 years ago”….that funny thing is that you have no idea how stupid you are !

        So…..you are saying the Mile & a Half of Ice Above Manhattan melted in this 350 years????

        THIS IS AN INTER GLAICAL WARM PERIOD.
        IT PEAKED 7500 YEARS AGO.
        TEMPS have been falling since then, very slowly.
        Much of the last 1000 years has been Called
        The Little Ice Age….because of those falling temperatures.
        Those cooling temperatures ended 1750-1800.
        CO2 was about 280ppm.
        During the 1800’s TEMPERATURES STARTED their slow rise, in spits and spurts…but UP and UP !

        • Bart

          You think Manhattan had a mile and a half of ice over it 350 years ago?

          • Rick Kooi

            You said that was the ice age?????

          • Bart

            I?

        • Bart

          “what an amazingly dumb comment”

          My comment using such words was deleted. Could the deck be stacked? Oh, perish the thought!

          Warming: don’t get too cocky thinking your arguments hold such sway that there are no responses. You may be getting help from above.

  • Ceist Celt

    Rick, Roy Spencer isn’t posting “raw” satellite data. It’s their UAH v6.x product.

    You can read up on what satellites are actually measuring and how the final ‘product’ is produced on the RSS website:

    http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature

    The UAH v6.x product is now the low outlier. Spencer and Christy have a long history of getting it wrong and their mistakes have been corrected over the years by other scientists like RSS’s Mears and Wentz.

    • tarajunky

      Were Spencer or Christy asked to peer review this Mears paper, and if not why not?

      Spencer predicted three things, that RSS would be revised, that it would go up, and that he would not be allowed to peer review it. If true, the last prediction is the most shocking and disturbing of all.

      • Ceist Celt

        Spencer and Christy have been shown to have be wrong several times in the past and other scientists have had to correct THEIR mistakes, which S & C grudgingly had to accept.

        What do you mean “not allowed”? Spencer can ‘peer review’ Mears and Wentz’s published paper any time he wants.

      • Ceist Celt

        Were Mears and Wentz asked to peer review the Spencer and Christy paper?
        I notice you didn’t ask that question. After all, Mears and Wentz have had to correct mistakes made by Spencer and Christy in the past.
        eg
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/errors-cited-in-assessing-climate-data.html

        1. Why wouldn’t RSS be revised? UAH was. Satellite orbital decay/drift/equipment changes etc need to be corrected for all the time.
        Christy was spruiking their un-peer-reviewed/unpublished v6 beta version of their UAH product in Senate/House hearings long before their paper was even published. RSS did not release their v4 until after their papers had been published. Do you find that ‘shocking and disturbing’?

        2. Why wouldn’t it ‘go up’? The rationale for correcting for known errors and issues is explained in detail in their papers. Far more detail than Spencer and Christy’s belated paper where they ignored some known issues.

        3. How is Spencer “not allowed” to ‘peer review’ Mears and Wentz’s paper? That’s a silly claim. He can ‘review’ it any time he likes. He just needs to write and publish a review paper, like anyone else.

        eg: Swanson, R. Eric. “A Comparative Analysis of Data Derived from Orbiting MSU/AMSU Instruments.” Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 34.1 (2017): 225-232.
        http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JTECH-D-16-0121.1

    • Bart

      Yeah, it’s nice to have sympathetic reviewers. The alarmists throw up roadblocks, and then point to it as if it is a failing on the other guys’ parts like butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths.

      True results do tend to become an outlier when there is a discrepancy, and the gatekeepers, instead of adjusting their hypothesis, opt to adjust the data instead.

      • Ceist Celt

        Just more conspiracy nonsense. Seems to be your thing.

        • Bart

          It’s not a conspiracy when they are going it in the open. The UEA emails showed that. Who am I going to believe, you or my lyin’ eyes? I’ll go with the eyes.

  • Victor

    Regardless of the differences, the two graphs present essentially the same picture.

  • Bart

    They are clearly not rising at any rate near what they were before the onset of the pause. And, the GCMs are running way hot. You can dance and jive all you like, but you are only fooling yourself.

    • Rick Kooi

      Quite the contrary….

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HNjoaXkAM4EqU.jpg

      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

      Although temperatures had been running a little lower than the central estimate of IPCC projections in recent years,
      they were,
      and are,
      still within the projected ‘envelope,’ as shown in the figure above and discussed at length in the linked articles.
      Moreover,
      I added, there was and is a long track record in the scientific literature of successful predictions by climate models. It was collected and documented by Barton Paul Levenson
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/26/sea-level-rise-isnt-just-happening-its-getting-faster/?wpisrc=nl_most-draw5&wpmm=1

      I quoted Barton as follows below, Multi-National Global Climate Computer Models
      SPOT-ON-ACCURATELY predicted:
      .
      1.That the EARTH would warm
      (stopping 7500 years of Cooling Temperatures)
      .
      2. How fast the EARTH would warm
      .
      3. How much the EARTH would warm
      .
      4.That the troposphere would warm
      .
      5. That the stratosphere would cool.
      .
      6.That nighttime temperatures would increase MORE than daytime temperatures.
      .
      7.That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
      .
      8.Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
      .
      9.That the Arctic would warm FASTER than the Antarctic.
      .
      10.The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
      .
      11.They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
      .
      12.They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
      .
      13.The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
      .
      14.The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
      .
      15.The expansion of the Hadley cells.
      .
      16.The poleward movement of storm tracks.
      .
      17.The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
      .
      18.The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
      .
      19.The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
      .
      20.That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase….”
      .
      21. 47% of Species have already been disturbed/driven out of their native habitat.
      .
      Correct predictions !
      Looks like a pretty good track record to me.
      .
      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-HNjoaXkAM4EqU.jpg

      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

      • Bart

        You can convince yourself of anything when the evidence is weak to nonexistent. You are falling prey to this newbie fallacy.

        • Rick Kooi

          SOOOO, you have nothing to disprove?
          No data just arrogant mouthings??

          • Bart

            Pretty much. You’ve given me nothing to disprove. You are just rationalizing what you want to be true.

  • Radiosity

    The message is:

    Temperature data that recently showed how temperature didn´t rise very much, have been subject to corrections(they have been changed) and now support the theory we want people to believe, so they keep giving us money.

    How many times can they repeat this scam before you realize that there has never been any threat and their theory is wrong. This is not the first time we hear: “Old measurment data from thermometer readings in history have changed, temperature readings are now replaced by what someone THINK should have been the temperature somewhere sometime in history. In average. So instead of data we now rely on the thoughts about what historic temperature data should have been according to a handful of people, and that is evidence of an apocalyptic future where we all die in a burning hell of dry ice.

    It is not even a well constructed lie. It´s pathetic.

    • Ceist Celt

      Once again, Note that when armchair fake “skeptics” know nothing about science but don’t like the conclusions, they make cavalier evidence-free accusations of fraud and misconduct by scientists. So much easier than spending years studying and doing research.

      • Radiosity

        Ok, let´s tear the greenhouse apart by explaining how solar radiation alone is responsible for average surface temperature.

        Solar irradiation, TSI(1361W/m^2), received on the disk that is earth´s shadow-pi*r^2, distributed over the hemisphere-2pi*r^2, is transformed into the volume of two concentric spherical volumes of the atmosphere and solid ball of earth-(4/3pi*r^3)^2.

        1/2(TSI/(4/3)^2)=383W/m^2=286.7K

        Using the proven and applied theory of heat transfer with the heat from the sun and the temperature of the surface show us the effective temperature:

        TSI-(1/2(TSI/(4/3)^2)=978W/m^2

        But the heat transfer must include the spherical body, which means that the inverse square law show how it declines with the distance from the emitting body:

        1/4*(TSI-(1/2(TSI/(4/3)^2)))=244W/m^2=256K

        On earth pressure is part of the energy distribution and it is caused by gravity. Using gauss law of gravity which use units Nm^2 instead of Nm, we can see that g^2=96Nm^2. Nm^2 is used for thermal resistance, which is suitable, and Nm^2 is equal to W/m^2 In gauss law of gravity the volume contain the sum of sources for the surface flux of the force. From that we see that:

        4/3*g^2=128W/m^2=218K(the temperature of the tropopause)

        There you have it. The whole system defined by simple basic thermodynamic principles. The problem of temperature distribution which climate science has failed to explain, and use cold air at -18C as a heat source instead of the sun, is accurately described with real physics. But there is more.

        Gravity is part of the heat flow and gauss gravity show:

        TSI=4/3σ(287K^4+218K^4)-4g^2-4/3*g^2=0

        And effective emission is separate and connected to core temperature which is about the same temperature as the surface of the sun:

        4^8*(TSI-(1/2(TSI/(4/3)^2)))=σ5770K^4

        You should have learned physics instead of listening to the priests of the doomsday cult. They just try to scare you so that you will give them money.

        • Ceist Celt
          • David Rice

            “LOL! that’s so bad it’s…”

            … a cut-and-paste lie that has been posted by anti-science “free market” lunatics in hundreds of places.

          • Radiosity

            I very much doubt that. Since I have made this model myself, and so far not seen it published anywhere by anyone but me. The equations here are just a fraction of what I have, and the really juicy ones I keep for myself as an ace in the sleeve. But that doesn´t matter. Because just the single equation for surface temperature from only geometry of spherical shells and one sided irradiation, is enough to embarrass the whole climate science community that say: earth is heated by water vapor and dry ice mixed up in air at a mean temperature of -18C, 33 degrees colder than the surface.

            In all experiments ever made on water vapor and dry ice/co2 where they interact with heat, the only result found in data is that: water vapor and dry ice absorb lots of heat from the heat source, and that makes it cooler.

            This is also the everyday experience by people. Example: put two pots on the stove, one filled with water, one empty. One will get red hot, one will be much cooler.

            Another: add water vapor and dry ice to a room at 20C. Will the air in the room get warmer or colder?

            Another: Light a fire outdoors. Put a stone a couple of meters away from the fire and let it rise to 20C in temperature. Now put the stone in a shallow water bath and regularly scoop water over it to keep it wet and keep evaporation going. The take an air compressor and blow air from some distance so that it flows across the surface of the stone. Then sprinkle some dry ice on it and let it evaporate, or use gaseous co2 to raise the fraction of dry ice in surrounding air. Measure temperature changes for all changes done with water, air and dry ice. I guess that you can draw the conclusion yourself that these changes in the stones surroundings will not cause increasing temperature in the stone. And I am pretty sure that you can´t give a single example where water, dry ice or cold air cause an increase in temperature of a hotter surface. Because you know that the absorption of heat in water vapor, air or dry ice will cause lower temperature in the hot surface.

            Now think long and hard about the fact that your theory of climate is built on claims that water vapor, dry ice and cold air has the opposite effect on earth´s surface than they have in everyday experience as well as all experimental studies. And ask yourself:

            Do I really want to defend a theory which contradict our collective experience and knowledge as well as contradict and violate proven and applied 100% consensus physics?

          • Concerned

            “have made this model myself”

            That explains why it is not even wrong. You have ignored the greenhouse effect and the fundamentals of radiation physics. Without a greenhouse effect, the earth would be 33C colder than it presently is using simple models. You cannot use a description of model that ignores something to prove that it doesn’t exist a priori. You need results and confirmation. Have you published your results in a peer-reviewed journal? Link please.

          • Radiosity

            Are you for real? The gh-effect exists only to explain the surface temperature. It even says that temperature is higher than it should be? Which means higher than what the retards miscalculation show, and implies that the radiation physics is invalid for earth.

            Any explanation is better than heat coming from a low temperature. Because that is what the theory says is impossible, and it is even a “law”.

            I say it is exactly what it should be, and use the principles proven to be true. It is hilarious that you don´t understand that any calculation done with the known principles for temperature and heat, that solves surface temperature, makes the gh-theory invalid. It only exists because of lack of understanding for physics by the scientists involved. They made a miscalculation and instead of realizing that their calculation is wrong, they made up the least probable solution of all: that heat flows from the coldest part of the system.

            “You cannot use a description of model that ignores something to prove that it doesn’t exist a priori. ”

            The greenhouse effect has never been proven, and there is nothing in the litterature supporting it, outside of the greenhouse literature.

            I don´t need to consider fantasies of reversed physical laws when analyzing the system. It is my duty to ignore your delusions of heat flowing from air that is 33degrees colder than the surface. Because the laws of physics say that you are wrong.

            Simple as that.

          • Ceist Celt

            I wonder what will happen if you ever learn what “net” flow actually means?

            The net heat transfer is from the earth’s surface (which was warmed by the sun) to the atmosphere.

          • Radiosity

            There is only “net” transfer in those equations. Net is heat. And it is called Heat transfer.

            I know about your pathetic try to avoid the problem by saying that there is energy transferred that is not included in “net”. But the thing is, if there is such transfer involved, we know for certain that it has absolutely no effect on temperature. Because it has ben proven since a long time, that temperature and heat transfer is only related to the “net” transfer. The other hypothesized energy in transfer does not affect temperature. The net transfer from the atmosphere is -150W/m^2. Net.

            Lets see how you use blankets to make that non-existing heat ride a magic unicorn and heat the surface with dry ice and reversed physics.

            Do you understand that you need to show calculation of the not-net energy transferred to have an argument? Because all calculations known say that you are a delusional crackpot that make things up, if you don´t.

          • Concerned

            Calculations of temperatures in the atmosphere using the greenhouse effect in its present form (radiation, convection, and lapse rate combined) have been made for 50 years. No credible scientist has ever disputed them. No science society or agency in the world disputes them. They show without a shadow of a doubt that the effect of inserting IR bsorbing GHGs into the atmosphere causes the earth to cool less, in a transient, until the system reaches a new higher temperature equilibrium in which cooling can balance heating.

            The net heat flux you are do not understand is the difference radiation out from the surface and a smaller amount of downwelling radiation toward the earth from the atmosphere. The net heat flux is out, not violating any law of thermodynamics. I know this concept is too deep for you because you don’t know what a photon is and how photons, when emitted, travel in random directions, some of which are down.

            Throw away your kids heat transfer primer and learn something about radiation physics.

          • Radiosity

            Compare calculations of the greenhouse effect to calculations of temperature in physics that is not in the greenhouse. Then you will see large differences in how they change equations in the greenhouse, which is not allowed in thermodynamics. For example adding surface fluxes of heat. A net transfer calculation does not add fluxes, it is a balance equation that subtracts fluxes.

            I repeat. Any transfer not included in NET-transfer, is irrelevant. It is not something unknown about this. It is not like there is anything that even imply the slightest that there is a transfer of energy not included in NET, that raise temperature.

            “Downwelling Radiation”. If you knew how a pyrgeometer works you would know that it is impossible to measure such “downwelling” heat from cold air. The manual clearly say that in such circumstances the meter will show a negative value. Which means that there is no “downwelling”. The ignorance is unbelievable. Do your homework.

            “I know this concept is too deep for you because you don’t know what a photon is and how photons, when emitted, travel in random directions, some of which are down.”

            Do all the photon-counting you want. But quantum physics is not used to determine bulk-properties of mass like temperature. Who fooled you to belive that? A climate scientist?

            Read a textbook about thermodynamics. Then you will enjoy not being wrong all the time.

            “Photons IN ALL DIRECTIONS”

            That shit always make me smile. It is so stupid.

          • Radiosity

            Here have another blow to the balls:

            Proven physics, statement by Prevost:

            The emission of a body depends on the internal state solely. Unquestioned and confirmed to be a correct description of heat flow and temperature.

            You say that the emission of the surface depends on the external state of the atmosphere. That is the opposite of what Prevost said.

            Care to explain why the greenhouse use reverse physics?

          • Radiosity

            “IR bsorbing GHGs into the atmosphere causes the earth to cool less”

            Then you do it wrong. Because increased absorption is proven to increase cooling. Insulation prevents absorption. You use reverse physics.

          • Concerned

            “known principles for temperature and heat”

            Excluding known principles of radiation heat transfer, convection, and lapse rate in the atmosphere from your “known principles,” that is, everything that is needed to describe and model the greenhouse effect, is utterly ignorant.

            “That statement’s not even ignorant. That statement is like ignorance resin. Like, if you just take all of the stupid and just cook it down, and then scrape just the pure ignorance. Like crystal “duh.” It’s like crystal “duh.””

            Jon Stewart

            http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

          • Radiosity

            What? Convection is caused by heat, the lapse rate is caused by heat. Heat transfer includes all of that. They flow according to differences in emissive power, which acts like potentials in the flow.

            You can say stupid and ignorance how many times you want. It will not cover the embarrasment of you claiming that air at -18C heats a surface at 14C. Which the laws of thermodynamics say is absolutely impossible. But hey, just go for it. You can´t stop now. Put some unicorns and blankets in there. Go full retard, no one will notice a difference.

          • Concerned

            It is IR photons, idiot, not a conduction problem. The net heat flux is out. For more, see below.

          • Radiosity

            You will just have to wait and see if it is published. But it is interesting to see that you apparently lack the knowledge to see that those calculations are not validated by a publication. They are valid because they use proven physics and geometry, and they don´t make assumptions about anything, they contain nothing new. Just those theories that everyone know is true, that have been standing all trials for the last hundred years. The gh-theory has never been tried and never been proven.

    • David Rice

      “It is not even a well constructed lie. It´s pathetic.”

      Since you know your lie is pathetic, why did you make it?

    • [Re: “Temperature data that recently showed how temperature didn´t rise very much, have been subject to corrections(they have been changed) and now support the theory we want people to believe, so they keep giving us money.”]

      There are multiple research papers showing tropospheric warming over the past two decades. These papers use different sources, such as satellite measurements, radiosondes (both temperature data and thermal-wind-derived temperature data), and re-analyses. Here are some of these papers, including the source mentioned in the above article:

      “Comparing tropospheric warming in climate models and satellite data”
      “Tropospheric warming over the past two decades”
      “Sensitivity of Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperature Trends to the Diurnal Cycle Adjustment”
      “A satellite-derived lower tropospheric atmospheric temperature dataset using an optimized adjustment for diurnal effects”
      “A reassessment of temperature variations and trends from global reanalyses and monthly surface climatological datasets”
      “Internal variability in simulated and observed tropical tropospheric temperature trends” (figure 3)
      “Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2)”

      So we clearly have multiple, converging/consilient lines of evidence supporting the same conclusion. That’s how really good science works; we can be fairly confident that our conclusion is not just due to the limitations of one particular method/approach. Instead the strengths of one method can compensate for the limitations of another method. For example, the satellites help compensate for the often poor coverage of radiosonde networks, while the radiosondes help compensate for the relatively limited vertical resolution of satellites.

      Now, what did you do in response to these consilient lines of evidence? Did you offer a meaningful, substantive critique? Nope. You went with the standard denialist tactic of inventing a baseless, paranoid conspiracy theory. In that respect, you’re not much different from other denialists, like AIDS denialists. Enjoy your internally inconsistent, conspiracist reasoning:

      “Conspiracy Theories and Selective Distrust of Scientific Authority
      […]
      Deniers argue that because scientists receive grant money, fame, and prestige as a result of their research, it is in their best interest to maintain the status quo [15]. This type of thinking is convenient for deniers as it allows them to choose which authorities to believe and which ones to dismiss as part of a grand conspiracy. In addition to being selective, their logic is also internally inconsistent.”
      http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256

      • Radiosity

        You need to redefine your definition of “evidence”. You refer to studies with titles including words like “reanalysis”, “Diurnal Cycle Adjustment”, “adjustment for diurnal effects”, “A reassessment” etc.

        Do you know what those words mean? They clearly say that these studies are not about data which in itself show a rising temperature. The studies are entirely about climate scientists interpretations of the data. It is their assumptions, coloured by their belief in the greenhouse effect and the ridicolous claim that increasing the amount of heat absorbers in a system supplied with limited constant heat flow will increase the temperature. You are not even aware of that there is no scientific support from experiments and the theory of heat for that claim. Actually, all data from experiments and the theory of heat and heat transfer, all say the exact opposite. Increasing the amount of heat absorbers will make less heat available for each molecules, since heat flow to the system is constant and limited. I smell the blanket coming, so I will kill that delusion in advance:

        A blanket is thermal insulation, cold air is not.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

        “Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of differing temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”

        As you can see, a blanket, or thermal insulation in general, does the exact opposite of what you claim is heating earth. To “retain heat”, you need to prevent absorption. Increasing absorption from increasing amount of heat absorbers means less available energy per molecule. Temperature is a measure of the average energy per molecule. Your whole theory is based on a complete contradiction to proven and widely applied, 100% consensus physics.

        You ever heard about Prevost? One of the pioneers studying heat and thermal radiation. He said: “The emission from a body logically depends on the internal state solely”. The “internal state” is what we measure as temperature and “the emission” is what we calculate with the stefan-boltzmann law, The fourth power of temperature that equals the emissive power of a body.

        You claim that the temperature of the surface increase from cold air absorbing increasing amounts of the surface emission. Why anyone would think that increasing heat absorption in the surroundings are a cause of increasing temperature of the heat source is a mystery. When you go out naked in the winter from your heated home, heat absorption is greatly increased. But even 5-year old kids know that it will make you colder, not hotter. Apparently, climate science have a problem understanding this.

        So, you base your preaching on a theory built entirely on physical concepts that are the opposite of what proven and applied thermodynamics describe. You claim that earth is 33 degrees “hotter than it should be”, even though such statement is equal to saying that unquestioned proven physical principles does not apply for earth, and that dry ice is a heat source as well as water vapor increases temperature of it´s heat source without adding energy or work. You include “forcing” which is a retarded concept, because in physics you either have a force or you don´t. “Forcing” is not work, not heat, it has no energy of its own and it doesn´t add any energy to the system. But still, you claim that the energy in the system increases, but no energy is added to the constant limited heat flow. A very fine example of “energy creation” and a violation of the most solid physics to date, the first law of thermodynamics.

        On top of this, you contradict Prevost head on, and claim that the only universal independent relationship we know of, the independent relationship of the heat flow and the emitters internal state, works in the opposite way on earth. You claim that the emission of the surface depends on the external state of the ice cold atmosphere. You choose the coldest part of the system to provide most of the heat by energy creation, just because you didn´t bother to open a book about thermodynamics.

        Considering the unscientific state of climate science theory, and the complete lack of support in physics, you point at weak correlations in small fluctuations in temperature, which are subject to all kinds of “treatments” before assumptions and conclusions are lumped into a doomsday cult where a burning hell of dry ice will destroy the world.

        You contradict the established and proven physics, and your evidence is correlations in data records of temperature measurements. You can pray to Al Gore as much as you want, but he will never be able to save you from your violations of physics.

        Temperature data that have been “adjusted” and “reanalyzed” will never make physics work in the opposite way. Believe what you want, but I say: you should not be allowed to talk about science.

        • Rick Kooi

          a grotesque reinterpretation on science.

          • Radiosity

            You mean a beautiful clarity based on the highest quality of science in history: thermodynamics. Completely free of assumptions and ideology, referring to flawless physical principles that no one would even try to question, since they have been proven to be absolutely true from experiments and application in the whole modern society. It includes only the strongest theories in science.
            It is as close to real *truth* as it can get. And it is also unquestionable arguments for directing attention to the fact that “climate change” is based on a theory that is the opposite of truth.

    • Mitch_Ocean

      When an observationally difficult data set does not agree with models, scientists look for errors in both models and data. They found errors in the observational data, caused primarily by the drift in time when the satellite was measuring temperature at a given location.

      The straw that you are grasping is not strong enough to hold you.

      • Gonzo

        Has there ever been an adjustment that warms the past and cools the present? Has there ever been an adjustment that hasn’t been “it’s worse than we thought”. I mean seriously, if this was a financial matter these people would be in jail.

        • Mitch_Ocean

          Yes there have been several. The recent study by Hausfather et al (2016, Geophysical Research Letters) showed that the temperatures before 1940 were about 0.2 deg C too cold. There are much fewer corrections to the present data because the measurement are made in a much more consistent manner.

          • Gonzo

            Like I said No there hasn’t. Zekes paper warmed pre-1940 data to smooth out the “natural” warming from early 1900’s. Which had been on par with recent warming as far as the trend goes. But……..they didn’t cool the present. So there are not “several” as you fallaciously claim.

        • Rick Kooi

          Yes

          • Gonzo

            Show me!

        • [Re: “Has there ever been an adjustment that warms the past and cools the present? Has there ever been an adjustment that hasn’t been “it’s worse than we thought”.”]
          [Re: “Show me!”]

          Yes.

          See:
          Figure 10 on page 80: “Tropospheric temperature trends: history of an ongoing controversy”
          http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1318&context=usdeptcommercepub

          That source clearly shows that homogenization does not always increase the temperature trend. It sometimes reduces the trend. Here’s another example of this:
          “Artificial amplification of warming trends across the mountains of the western United States”

          And here is UAH adjusting their warming trend down, again illustrating the point that revisions/homogenization do not always augment warming trends:
          “UAH version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results”

          Word of advice, Gonzo: there are many people on this forum who understand climate science better than you do. That includes Dr. Hausfather, the author of the article you’re commenting on. So instead of making smug comments towards those who know more than you (as you’ve done a number of times), ask questions (as you did above). That’s how I learned about climate science: I asked questions and I read reputable scientific sources. I didn’t make up laughable conspiracy theories about how climate were lying for political and financial reasons.

        • Concerned

          “Has there ever been an adjustment that warms the past and cools the present?”

          Yes. A cold bias in bucket temperatures prior to 1940 was adjusted out, increasing the sea surface temperature trends prior to 1940 and reducing the overall warming trend.

          https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/noaa_world_rawadj_annual.png

          This quote may be of interest.

          “There’s your big dirty secret,” he continued. “The only adjustment that makes a damn bit of difference on the global mean surface temperature record is an adjustment to pre-1940 sea surface temperature data that actually raises the values, and therefore reduces the [warming] trend.”

          https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroughly-fabricated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

      • Bart

        And, then they stopped looking. That is the demon of confirmation bias. It’s amazing how often in science, one finds precisely what one is looking for. That is why it took so long for humankind to crawl out of the dark ages. We were supposed to be inoculated against it by this time, but alas, human nature, unlike the climate, never changes.

      • Radiosity

        Proven physics, statement by Prevost:

        The emission of a body depends on the internal state solely. Unquestioned and confirmed to be a correct description of heat flow and temperature.

        Now, you support a theory that says: the emission of earth surface depends on the external state of the atmosphere. Clearly it is the opposite of what the physics say about emission.

        Why would anyone think that a theory saying the opposite of physical laws and principles, is a good theory and instead rely on unproven fairy-tales about how blankets and unicorns heat the earth with magic that reverse physics. Supporting it only with correlation in measurement data of temperature from only some parts of the planet.

        The sun heats the earth, it is the only heat source. Stop making up shit about how cold wet air and dry ice makes hot surfaces hotter. You know that it is the opposite of how water and cold air affect a hot surface. Don´t you trust your senses? Just blow air across your skin and you have proven the Gh-theory to be false. Air cools. And the atmosphere is cold.

    • NiCuCo

      Here are three posts by Zeke about temperature adjustments. Notice whose site they are on.

      “Understanding adjustments to temperature data”
      http://judithcurry.com/2014/07/07/understanding-adjustments-to-temperature-data/
      “Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data”
      http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/
      “Understanding Time of Observation Bias”
      http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/

      • Radiosity

        What do you mean? Does the location of the information change the contents validity?

        The graphs and conclusions made from data sets does not prove or support the theory of the greenhouse effect. They don´t change the fact that all claims made in the greenhouse theory and “global warming” are contradictions to proven physics.

        The formula for radiative heat transfer is based on only the difference in temperature between bodies, since earth is in vacuum and the sun is a blackbody(practically) we can confirm that the formula applies for earth. The heat flow from the sun is constant, so what we will see would be increase in earth temperature only. The formula, which is proven many times to be true, says that if solar heating is constant, and earth temperature rise, the rate of heat transfer from the sun will immediately drop by an exact equal amount as the rise in temperature. So we know that a temperature increase will always mean an equal opposite reaction where the sun heats earth less. There is no reason to think otherwise, nothing indicate that the physical principles should be ignored.

        But here we are, and there are lots of people making claims contradicting the physics. And not a single one of them know what they are talking about.

        • Bart

          Just shows Dr. Curry is evenhanded. A courtesy that her opponents would not so graciously extend to her.

  • Radiosity

    You seriously think that data from a miniscule portion of time which show very small fluctuations in temperature, which is in no way unusual in history, is a good foundation for claims about how dry ice can create energy that will cause apocalyptic scenarious?

    Have you thought about the problems with the description of heating in the greenhouse without windows?

    Earth is heated by a heat flow from the sun that is constant and limited. How can adding heat absorbers to that limited heat flow increase the average energy per heat absorbing molecule without increasing the power of the heat flow?

    Ever heard about “creation of energy” and how it should be avoided in all physical theories?

    Guess not.

    • Rick Kooi

      Ignorance is bliss…or it rimes with bliss.

      We have centuries of accurate human measures…shipping companies, military, governments….
      but better than those..
      .
      WE HAVE DETAILED RECORDS dating back hundreds of thousands of years.
      ….from ice cores we have identical samples of atmosphere, exact percentages of trace gasses, spores, pollen, soot etc.
      ….we can compare these with stalagmites, deep sea soil samples. fossils, tree rings and have far MORE ACCURATE DATA than collected in 1938, for example.
      .
      Your discussion of heat flow is childishly ignorant of science.
      ***
      1799
      “Climate Change was Postulated in 1799, Alexander von Humboldt.”
      .
      1811
      “Climate Changed Scientifically tied to Global Warming & Human Activity by physicist & astronomer Simeon Denis Poisson, 1811….”
      .
      He lectured, extensively, on this threat by 1827 !
      .
      1847
      “George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) author of the 1847 lecture that predicted > “human-induced climate change.” <
      .
      Scientists WERE ALREADY LECTURING ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING and the resulting Climate Changes, in 1847 !
      .
      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide & other gases was experimentally demonstrated & *PROVED* in the mid-19th century.”
      ..( these same fundamental experiments are Challenged & REPEATED Every year, in nearly every University Science class, around the world !
      …they are put up for critique and every science student takes a shot on the science
      … for decades, no appreciable critique of the science of Global Warming…not in climatology, not in physics, not Earth Science, not physical science, not in Meteorology, etc.)
      .
      "….The line of Solid empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows
      .
      We're raising CO2 levels and H2O & other gasses.
      (here is how we have determined it)
      Human carbon dioxide emissions & other gasses are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
      .
      Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites.
      For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million.
      .
      Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by OVER 110 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year.
      .
      ( Instead of 225-285PPM, as it has been for well over 10,000 years, today we are NOW 'OVER' 411PPM ! )
      .
      ( What has change which has caused this to occur? )
      .
      Atmospheric CO2 levels and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC).
      While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million,
      here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes.
      CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.
      ….
      ( Humans are NOW emitting more than 135 TIMES as much CO2 as ALL of the volcanoes on EARTH, each & every year, COMBINED ! )
      (The Unique Isotopic Signature proves that this CO2 INCREASE is from the Burning of Fossil Fuels)
      .
      CO2 traps heat
      .
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/scientists-just-documented-a-massive-melt-event-on-the-surface-of-antarctica/?wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
      .
      According to radiative physics & decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space.

      * In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra.
      * In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
      * Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing I.R. energy radiation over the 26 year period .
      .
      GOOGLE: IRIS Satellite
      GOOGLE: Japanese Satellite IMG
      Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).

      What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy.
      The change/reduction in outgoing radiation was consistent with Global Warming theoretical expectations.

      ** Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect" and Global Warming.

      ((If Infra Red Energy, does not escape, it is retained in our Earth System as rising temperatures.))

      This result has been confirmed by subsequent Research papers using data from later satellites.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Griggs 2004)
      Google this SOURCE: ( Chen 2007 )
      .
      Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases.
      'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Harries 2001).
      .
      When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions.
      Much of it makes its way back to the earth's surface.
      .
      Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards.
      .
      Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Wang 2009)
      .
      A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Philipona 2004)
      .
      Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
      .
      The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
      .
      Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface.
      Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Evans 2006)
      .
      The planet is accumulating heat
      .
      When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet's total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
      .
      Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep.
      Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere.
      Land and ice heat content(eg-the energy required to melt ice)were also included.
      .
      Total Earth Heat Content from 1950.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Murphy 2009)
      .
      SOURCE: (Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008.)
      .
      From 1970 to 2003,
      the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans.
      .
      Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
      .
      What about after 2003?
      A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep .
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (von Schuckmann 2009)
      .
      Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance.
      .
      Google this SOURCE: (Hansen 2005)
      Google this SOURCE: (Trenberth 2009).

      The planet continues to accumulate heat.

      1. So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels.

      2. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellites and many surface measurements.

      3. The planet's energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet's total heat content and ocean heat measurements…."

      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      ***
      CONCERNED Stated:
      What happened in the distant past,
      4 1/2 billion years ago,
      65 million years ago, or even
      120,000 or
      20,000 years ago, has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening now.
      .
      Different mechanisms are involved.
      .
      Scientists told you about past climate changes.
      They are telling you that now it is different.
      .
      Pay attention.
      .
      This Holocene interglacial thermal maximum, occurred 7,000-7500 years ago.
      After this maximum, there have been roughly 7000-7500 years of natural cooling, as we started the slow descent into the next ice age / glaciation !
      .
      ( much of the last 1000 years is called the LITTLE ICE AGE )
      ( "ICE AGE" because it continued thousands of years of cooling on earth )
      ("LITTLE" because it ended abruptly in 1750-1800 )
      .
      What Caused a sudden and complete reversal of the Earth's Most Powerful natural cooling trend, which has occurred in the last 150 – 250 years.
      .
      THERE IS NO natural explanation,
      NO NATURAL CYCLE which explains this complete / sudden reversal, FROM millenia of Falling Temperatures to Rapid RISING Temperatures.
      .
      The CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect does explain it.
      .
      https://www.aip.org/history
      It is science.
      Get some.

      http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png

  • David Rice

    “Climate sceptics have long claimed that satellite data shows global warming to be less pronounced than observational data collected on the Earth’s surface.”

    No: one will not find any sceptics of climate change who made that claim. You will fimnd climate change deniers who made that claim, but all sceptcs were convinced by the data decades ago.

  • tarajunky

    There’s a lot of talk about the long history of science behind global warming, going back 150 years. What gets swept under the rug are all the failed predictions made along the way.

    Back in the 1960s they knew the laboratory effect of co2 on radiative transfer of atmospheric gasses to extreme precision, and had even calculated it using computers. Todays warmists tout the same experiments as the basic physics for their belief. Yet what predictions were being made based on that full understandings of the basic physics?

    The world experts put together a paper called Restoring the Quality of Our Environment in 1965. It gave a range of possible scenarios, but the headline numbers were that by the year 2000 temperatures would be 7 degrees higher and sea level would rise by 10 feet. This is documented in the Nixon white house archives.

    After they gave their range of scenarios to 2000, they then went to predict further into the future. At this point they dropped their range of scenarios and went with the one they felt was most justified, the 7 degree 10 foot scenario. They extrapolated out further to predict another 200 feet of sea level rise by 2200, or one additional for per year. So by my calculation, they predicted 27 feet of sea level rise by 2017, and we instead saw half a foot, so they only missed by 5400%. It’s actually not so bad compared to other predictions made by later experts.

    • [Re: “There’s a lot of talk about the long history of science behind global warming, going back 150 years.”]

      Because it goes back that far, to at least Tyndall and Arrhenius.

      “CARBON DIOXIDE. Mid-nineteenth-century British naturalist John Tyndall was fascinated by the new emerging evidence of past ice ages, and believed he had found a possible explanation for such dramatic changes in Earth’s climate: changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Some molecules, he realized, could absorb thermal radiation, and as such could be the cause for “all the mutations of climate which the researches of geologists reveal” (Weart 2003; Tyndall 1861; Somerville et al. 2007). In 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would raise global temperatures 5°–6°C. However, he figured it would take 3,000 yr of fossil fuel burning to do it (Weart 2003).”
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

      [Re: “Back in the 1960s they knew the laboratory effect of co2 on radiative transfer of atmospheric gasses to extreme precision, and had even calculated it using computers. Todays warmists tout the same experiments as the basic physics for their belief. Yet what predictions were being made based on that full understandings of the basic physics?”]

      Your use of the term “warmists” is as misplaced as flat-earthers calling people “round earthists” (or Young earth creationists calling people “evolutionists”). The Earth warmed since the 1950s, and the Earth is round. Deal with it.

      Anyway, some predictions relating to warming and/or atmospheric physics:

      1) Post-1950s tropospheric warming + surface warming (of oceans and land).
      2) Post-1950s stratospheric cooling.
      3) Post-1950s mesospheric cooling.
      4) Post-1950s thermospheric cooling.
      5) Post-1970s increase in radiation absorption at a wavenumber of ~666 cycles per cm.
      6) More warming of the land surface than the ocean surface.
      7) Polar amplification, where the Arctic warms more than much of the rest of the world (including warming more than Antarctica).
      8) Tropical hot spot, where the tropical troposphere warms more than the tropical ocean surface (as per a reduction in the moist adiobatic lapse rate).
      9) Uptake of CO2 by oceans, increase ocean carbon levels and causing ocean acidification
      10) Decreased atmospheric ratio of the C14 isotope of carbon in CO2.
      11) Decreased atmospheric ratio of the C13 isotope of carbon in CO2.
      12) Decreased relative proportion on O2 in the atmosphere.
      13) Initial surface warming coincides with the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
      14) Hemispheric warming pattern that is unlike what one would predict from aerosol forcing being the main cause of warming.

      By the way: all the aforementioned predictions were borne out.

      [Re: “So by my calculation,”]

      Please cite a specific, reputable scientific source. Because based on your posts here, you know very little about the topics you’re discussing. So I’m not going to rely on your ability to calculate or your contrarian understanding of the sources you read. I’m not going to buy into that sort of pseudoskepticism:

      “When scientific consensus is rejected by non-experts who naively consider themselves more scientifically astute than the collective scientific community, it is appropriately labeled pseudoskepticism.”
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12179/full

      • tarajunky

        My calculation was 27 ÷ 0.5 = 54. It’s embarrassing for you that you didn’t grasp something so self evident. Why don’t you plug it into some economic models and tell us all the ‘right’ answer?

        • [Re: “My calculation was 27 ÷ 0.5 = 54. It’s embarrassing for you that you didn’t grasp something so self evident.”]
          [Re: “It gave a range of possible scenarios, but the headline numbers were that by the year 2000 temperatures would be 7 degrees higher and sea level would rise by 10 feet. This is documented in the Nixon white house archives. After they gave their range of scenarios to 2000, they then went to predict further into the future. At this point they dropped their range of scenarios and went with the one they felt was most justified, the 7 degree 10 foot scenario. They extrapolated out further to predict another 200 feet of sea level rise by 2200, or one additional fooy per year. So by my calculation, they predicted 27 feet of sea level rise by 2017, and we instead saw half a foot, so they only missed by 5400%.”]

          You’re a great example of a pseudoskeptic: you think you know more than the scientific experts in this topic, even though you really don’t know what you’re talking about. The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

          Anyway, you’re making the same mistake that Bill Whittle made. See the following video, up to about the 2:56 mark:
          “Response to Bill Whittle’s “Is climate change real?””
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7aZ6vqCk2E&lc=z13tgrhintffuftef23yj3wxizr0ixigc04.1499011287696317

          Like Whittle, your calculation assumeds that rate sea level rise is CONSTANT such that sea level rise is linear. It isn’t constant, as was explained in that video. Instead, sea level accelerated in the past, and will likely do so in the future.

          Basically:

          1) Global warming (including CO2-induced global warming) causes sea level rise.
          [Ex: “Global sea level linked to global temperature”; “Relationship between sea level and climate forcing by CO2 on geological timescales”]
          2) There was global warming from about the 1970s to the present, and from the 1940s to the 1970s there was a period of relative temperature stagnation or slight global cooling.
          [Ex: “Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century”]
          3) Given points 1 and 2, you’d expect the rate of sea level rise to change in response to global warming patterns of the 20th century, with greater sea level rise in the late 20th century as compared to the mid-20th century. This is what we observe.
          [Ex: “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?”; table 2 of “Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?”]

          So sea level rise since about the late 20th century is greater than it was before then. Furthermore, some areas of the globe experience more accelerated sea level rise than other regions of the globe:

          “New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach”
          “Recent global sea level acceleration started over 200 years ago?”
          Table 2 of “Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts?”
          “Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807”
          “A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise”
          “Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century”
          “Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the Atlantic coast of North America”
          “An Anomalous Recent Acceleration of Global Sea Level Rise”
          “Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-century sea-level rise”

          It’s an open question whether sea level rise accelerated during the 2000s and onwards, though much of the evidence points to an acceleration:

          “Evaluation of the Global Mean Sea Level Budget between 1993 and 2014”
          “New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach”
          “Reassessment of 20th century global mean sea level rise”
          “The increasing rate of global mean sea-level rise during 1993–2014”
          “Unabated global mean sea-level rise over the satellite altimeter era”
          “An increase in the rate of global mean sea level rise since 2010”

          By the way, here’s the document you were referring to:

          “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment”
          https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf

          Tell me specifically where that document makes the claims you said it made.

          • Rick Kooi

            There is NO SCIENTIFIC Organization that claimed temps would be 7C higher and sea levels would increase by 10 feet in a few years.

            HEADLINES are anything but SCIENCE !

          • tarajunky

            Read the report, read my comments again, read the report again. These were the experts of the time, and were advising the president of the us.

          • Rick Kooi

            blah blah blah

            your interpretation of the report is WRONG….it was quite accurate…65 years ago or so…based on rudimentary models….amazingly accurate.

          • Rick Kooi

            You have, as usual, distorted the 11/65 report…grotesquely.

            The prediction, for example, was for a temperature rise of 1 to 7 degrees F.

            the rest is your ideological sh.t

    • jack dale

      Here is the document to which you referred.

      https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf

      Please provide the page numbers on which the forecasts you mention can be found.

      • Gonzo

        Why don’t you show us jack?

        • jack dale

          It is hard to show what is not there.

          • Gonzo

            So you don’t have jack?

          • Rick Kooi

            cause you wouldn’t understand jack !

            It has a bunch of big words !

    • [Re: “The world experts put together a paper called Restoring the Quality of Our Environment in 1965. It gave a range of possible scenarios, but the headline numbers were that by the year 2000 temperatures would be 7 degrees higher and sea level would rise by 10 feet. This is documented in the Nixon white house archives.”]

      You didn’t actually read the 1965 report, did you? You probably just read a press piece about comments a political adviser said in relation to the 1965 report:

      “Daniel Patrick Moynihan, would attach the 1965 Report’s climate change findings to a memo sent to White House Counsel John Ehrlichman. Moynihan wrote: It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise 25 percent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the Earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.”
      http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/259342-fifty-years-ago-the-white-house-knew-all-about-climate

      You realize that relying on Moynihan’s comments is not the same as relying on the report, right? Are you going off Moynihan’s comments, or did you read the actual 1965 report?:

      “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment”
      https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf

      No wonder you pseudoskeptics know so little: you don’t read the scientific, primary literature. Instead you just go off your misrepresentations of half-remembered stuff you saw in the press and other non-scientific sources. Please do your homework by reading the primary literature.

      • tarajunky

        I’m probably the ONLY one on this site who had actually read the primary report before i cited it.

        Where in the Nixon archive does it talk about sea level rise after the year 2000, as i did? Logic and critical thinking would indicate that i had read beyond the Nixon memo, but somehow you missed that. Again, quite embarrassing for you.

        You say i don’t read the literature, yet jack dale can’t even read a few pages in to find the information for himself.

        • Rick Kooi

          legit reference is needed HERE !

          A bit of Nixon Science was my masters thesis……
          I NEED a REFERENCE….

        • [Re: “I’m probably the ONLY one on this site who had actually read the primary report before i cited it.”]

          You dodged the question again, even though at least two people have asked you this question. Once again:

          You said:
          “The world experts put together a paper called Restoring the Quality of Our Environment in 1965. It gave a range of possible scenarios, but the headline numbers were that by the year 2000 temperatures would be 7 degrees higher and sea level would rise by 10 feet. This is documented in the Nixon white house archives.”

          This is the 1965 report:
          “Restoring the Quality of Our Environment”
          https://dge.carnegiescience.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira%20downloads/PSAC,%201965,%20Restoring%20the%20Quality%20of%20Our%20Environment.pdf

          WHERE does the report say what you claim?

          Note that citing Moynihan’s comments is not the same as citing the report:
          “Daniel Patrick Moynihan, would attach the 1965 Report’s climate change findings to a memo sent to White House Counsel John Ehrlichman. Moynihan wrote: It is now pretty clearly agreed that the CO2 content will rise 25 percent by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the Earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.”
          http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/259342-fifty-years-ago-the-white-house-knew-all-about-climate

          So show you actually read the report. Cite where the report claimed what you said it claimed. If you continue to fail to do this, then that’s a tacit admission that the report does not say what you claim it said.

      • Rick Kooi

        Lyndon Johnson was president in 65.

      • Rick Kooi

        “….Many are up in arms to learn that Exxon has known since 1977 that burning fossil fuels would eventually endanger humanity. But Exxon was not alone.

        Our own U.S. government has known far more, and for far longer, about the danger to our climate system from the burning of fossil fuels and of solutions to the problem of climate change. However, our own federal government did little with this knowledge, except to largely bury it from the public eye.

        Fifty years ago, on November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. That 1965 White House report stated:

        “Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more CO2 in our atmosphere than present.”
        Catastrophically, on the 50th anniversary of the White House report, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are indeed at 399 ppm: 25 percent over 1965 levels, exactly as predicted 50 years ago. Science.
        The 1965 White House report went on to detail the federal government’s extensive understanding of the urgency and dire impacts of climate change. The report warned:
        “This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur. Possibilities of bringing about countervailing changes by deliberately modifying other processes that affect climate may then be very important.”
        Remarkably, instead of taking affirmative steps to combat the climate change it knew was coming, our federal government became the primary contributor to climate change in the U.S., both by extensively burning fossil fuels itself and by encouraging and enabling the extensive development of fossil fuels over the last 50 years.

  • Rick Kooi

    “1799
    He POSTULATED Human activities-induced Climate Change, while on a research mission to South America. Alexander von Humboldt…”The Father of Climate Science.”

    “1811…
    The first scientific connection to global warming dates from 1811 when the physicist and astronomer Simeon Denis Poisson speculated that atmospheric pollution led to increased temperatures and climate changes.
    .
    1827…
    he had completed dozens of lectures on this issue.

    1824 ….
    Joseph Fourier calculates that the Earth would be FAR COLDER if it lacked an atmosphere.

    1859
    Tyndall discovers that some gases block infrared radiation. He suggests that changes in the concentration of these gases would bring “climate change”.
    .

    1896
    Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

    1897
    Chamberlain produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks.

    1870-1910
    Second Industrial Revolution. Fertilizers and other chemicals, electricity, and public health further accelerate growth. Major cities are are often smothered in soot & foul odors & stinging eyes.

    1914-1918
    World War I. Governments learn to mobilize and control industrial societies.

    1920-1925
    Opening of Texas and Persian Gulf oil fields inaugurates era of cheap energy.

    1930s
    Global warming trend since late 19th century is researched & reported.

    Milankovitch proposes orbital/axis changes as the cause of ice ages.

    1938
    Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving concern in the question.

    1939-1945
    World War II. Grand strategy is largely driven by a struggle to control oil fields.

    1945
    U.S. Office of Naval Research begins generous funding of many fields of science, some of which happen to be useful for understanding national security & climate change.

    1956
    Ewing and Donn offer a feedback model for geologically quick ice age onset.

    Phillips produces a somewhat realistic computer model of the global atmosphere.

    Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect increasing the radiation energy balance.

    1958
    The 1st Major Statement from the Scientific community on ANY ISSUE, This Research Report & Warning was about the growing threat from the LARGE SCALE dumping Of Industrial TOXIC Waste Gases & Chemicals into our atmosphere over the last century which appears to be feeding Global Warming and that looks like it will create significant Climate Changes.
    …given directly to President Eisenhower.

    1960
    The Downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s is reported. Speculation about increased Clouds/Aerosols/Ocean Obsorption of heat. Keeping accurately measures CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and detects an annual rise.
    .
    The level of CO2 has passed 315 ppm.

    1963
    Calculations suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.

    1965
    Boulder meeting on causes of climate change, in which Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature
    of the climate system and the possibility of geologically sudden shifts.

    The American Association for the Advancement of Science, with the International Scientific Community presented A REASEARCH & WARNING Report to President Johnson.
    Research Results all but guaranteeing HUGE & THREATENING Climate Changes, as world industry continues the unrestrained Pumping of ” TOXIC ” INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL WASTE Gases & Chemicals into Our Atmosphere. Projections based on rudimentary models estimated for 50 years into the future (2015)

    1966
    Emiliani’s analysis of deep-sea cores shows the timing of ice ages was set by small orbital shifts,
    suggesting that the climate system is sensitive to small changes.

    1967
    International Global Atmospheric Research Program established, mainly to gather data for better short-range weather prediction but including climate.

    Manabe and Wetherald make a convincing calculation that doubling CO2 would raise world temperatures a couple of degrees C.

    1968
    Studies suggest a possibility of collapse of Antarctic ice sheets, which would seriously affect sea levels catastrophically.

    1969
    Astronauts walk on the Moon, and people perceive the Earth as a fragile whole.

    Budyko and Sellers present models of catastrophic ice-albedo feedbacks.

    Nimbus III satellite begins to provide comprehensive global atmospheric temperature measurements.
    …year by year registering increases in temperatures

    • Gonzo

      Cut and paste winner for the day! You forgot bill nye and gores failed Co2 in a jar ground breaking exhibition.

    • Radiosity

      All these people pretending to do science for such a long time, but failing to pay attention to the foundation of all science: thermodynamics and the theory of heat radiation. If they had just taken the time to read about the theory and the confirmation in experimental data, which is massive, they wouldn´t even have given birth to such a retarded idea that choose the coldest part of a system with a heat flow, as the major heat source.

      Fourier did not make the claims you think he did, and mostly he is wrongly cited from his memoirs and not a science paper. Arrhenius was not in physics, and he had a stupid idea(which we all have now and then). He did not prove any gh-effect and neither did Fourier. Tyndalls experiment show no results that support a claim that a heat absorbing gas can increase the heat flow from the heat source that heats the gas. Read his work carefully and pay attention to the word “deflection” which is used throughout to describe what gasses effect is on heat radiation. I can go on and on about what you have misunderstood about the early science and proven physical theories. But I advise you to investigate this yourself, it will be a rewarding experience and it will make you a more intelligent and truthful monkey. And you will be free of guilt and shame, there is nothing wrong with our technology and the use of cheap energy. There is no threat.

      I notice that your list doesn´t include the early 20th century unmatched melting in the arctic. Where the temperature increased a lot, but only above the polar circle. There was not enough co2 at that time for that to be possible, If you were right about co2. And your theory claims that a melting would affect the gulf-stream, making it stop and cause an apocalyptic change with massive freezing in the north. It is intriguing to read that the scientists going to the arctic at the time of melting made measurements of the gulf-streams power in the flow, the depth and how far north it reached. Guess what? It was strong, warm and deep, and it flowed far up north. And there we go again, as usual reality is repeatedly and clearly showing us that predictions made based on your theory of heat coming from subzero gasses, is exactly as wrong as a prediction can get, every time. Not surprising though, since your theory says the opposite of what proven science say. Just stop making shit up and read a physics textbook instead. Life will be much easier, you will not be wrong all the time.

      An advice, go for a thorough search in the literature for anything in experimental data or theory about heat, radiation and temperature, that confirm the postulated effect where a cold gas can cause increase in power of a heat flow from the heat source heating the cold gas. Start with Hottel or something, he was very careful and exact in his methods. Try to find the claimed physics in the greenhouse, in any textbook or chapter that is not a description of the greenhouse or climate change. It doesn´t exist. And you know that it is not a good thing when a theory use principles that cannot be found anywhere else, and on top of that, lacks all forms of experimental data supporting the hypothesis.

      When will you grasp the extension of the problem in the fact that a theory of physical processes that use unique and contradictionary definitions about well known phenomenons like heat transfer, that can be found in no other theories which mostly show the opposite, it is a very strong sign that there is need for some very skeptical questions. We can not allow for global policies based on correlations in adjusted data sets that show a weakening connection to the postulated cause of temperature increase. In physics we find exact models proven to be very functional, about how temperature and heat relate to each other and the surroundings, without any use of statistical correlations with unknown and unproven physical principles as a base. That you use such information as “evidence” invalidates the theory by ignoring established proven science. Always these long lists with links to irrelevant papers made by idiots that mix tree-rings with temperature data, but only the pieces that fit together, or fudge computer simulations by manipulation of code(climategate), and trying to control the peer review process to avoid critizism. You work hard to avoid the questions asking just for a single reference to a sound mathematical description of the universal underlaying principle for heat flow, that is the only reference you need to confirm that your theory is not crackpottery.

      Just one single reference to the physical principle that show how it is a universal mechanism that cause heat flows to increase in power, from absorption of the emitted heat in cold gasmixes. That is all you need, but that is what you never provide. In science you need to ask yourself the hardest questions about your own beliefs/theories. Have you ever questioned your theory at all? Maybe now is the time to start?

      • Ceist Celt

        LOL! Sky Dragon Slayer Radiosity is ranting about an imaginary 2nd law of thermodynamics.

        https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/15/the-imaginary-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

        • Radiosity

          Wow. I guess you won the debate there. Which part of your argument do you think is most scientific? Is it the words “ignorant/insane”? Or you talking about physics without showing any sign of an argument based on physics?

          I guess you find it useful to make statements about your opponents mental health and try to make people believe that personal traits that you make up about their knowledge and character, is more important than addressing scientific questioning of your theory.

          Can you tell me anything about how your mental health is not perfect, or maybe you are religious or a creationist? I don´t want to make things up, so if you tell me instead, then I too can engage in this type of personal attacks instead of having a scientific discussion? Maybe you are fat? Then I can do some name-calling or something?

          • Ceist Celt

            Mate, go talk to a physicist if you can’t even read a basic physics textbook. You are embarrassing yourself with your nonsensical rants.

        • Radiosity

          There is only NET included in the transfer of heat. HEAT is NET. NO other energy is transferred that have an effect on temperature. This is not debated, it is proven.

          The second law says that NO energy can be transferred from cold to hot, without work being done ON the system, and cause rising temperature.

          Which part of “NO energy that can raise the temperature” do you not understand.?And why do you think NET is your saviour from embarrasment?

          Show what other energy than heat is flowing, with a calculation.

      • Gordon McGrew

        “Arrhenius was not in physics,” Arrhenius was a physicist and chemist, both of said fields being heavily influenced by thermodynamics. It is amusing that your observation of the glaring contradiction between thermodynamics and GHG theory has not been recognized by any professional chemical or physical science organizations. Maybe you should write to the American Chemical Society and the American Physical Society and explain why their statements on climate science are so painfully mistaken. Boy, won’t they be embarrassed when you have to explain the chemistry and physics to them.

        https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html

        • Radiosity

          It is a question of a very unclear definition of the physics in the greenhouse, which not many people have studied closely. I have still not met any scientist that doesn´t agree that these things I point at are a real and big problem for the theory. The thing is, no one cares about thermodynamics anymore, it is mostly used by engineers. Everyone wants the “weird” quantum physics that is the “hip” science today. Not many people even know about Prevost and the foundation of physics which is centered around the independent relationship of internal energy and heat flow. No one reads the history of the discoveries.

          There is no way to combine a heat flow from -18C air to a surface at 14C which cause any kind of rising temperature, with the proven principles of heat radiation. There is NO way. Impossible.

          There is no chemist or physicist that will even try to say that such a mechanism is real or even possible in the universe. But most of them have not been informed about the problem.

  • Mitch_Ocean

    How are you able to tell bad science from conspiracy? Christy has had a history of making errors, generally biased to the cold side. Why shouldn’t someone who knows what they are doing check his work?

  • Bart

    You are clearly a herd animal. You seek safety in abdicating your thought processes to those you imagine know better than you. Typical henchman.

  • Betawelder

    More Warmist Garbage, what a waste of human enegy.

    • jack dale

      Thanks for dropping in. Bye.

  • Radiosity

    “(CO2 removes sufficient Infra Red Radiation = that the Stratosphere deprived of IR heat
    …is cooling
    …If Deniers/Skeptics are to be believed…that ALL heat comes from the sun.
    …then the Stratosphere Is FIRST IN LINE to WARM from the sun. with the LARGEST SURFACE AREA FACING THE SUN”

    That would be the correct way to describe how the physics of heat doesn´t work.

    The major part of solar radiation is absorbed first in the surface. The atmosphere is then heated by heat emitted from the surface. If solar heat arrives first at the surface, and it heats the surface with much higher intensity than the surface emits when heating the atmosphere, why the f**k would the stratosphere heat up first? Do you even realize that heat from the sun is intense enough to penetrate the fluid atmosphere, and that the solid absorbs allmost all heat from the sun that reach it?

    Like I said in another comment: try reading a physics textbook instead of reading papers about correlations that are not proven to be cause and effect(which physics say they are not). Life will be easier and you can stop worrying about how hot you will be from all the dry ice in the very cold atmosphere. No one is forcing you to continue being wrong all the time.

    • Rick Kooi

      Once Again, how is it possible that the STRATOSPHERE is Cooling
      and
      The TROPOSPHERE is warming ?

      It is difficult to understand WHAT YOUR assertion is?
      …but you seem to say that Solar Radiation 1st heats the Earth
      .
      (as I have said…’Short Wave’ Radiation not interacting with atmospheric gasses passes thru the atmosphere and heats the Earth)
      …..
      The Long Wave Infra Red Radiation emitted from Earth then heats to atmosphere
      ….if that is your statement ?
      .
      ….WHY is the Stratosphere not warming in equal ratio with the Troposphere.

      Heat Passes from the highest temp to the coolest….

      • Radiosity

        Temperature is not caused by anything. It is the cause of everything. The draper point is a temperature where practically all solids glow. The most conservative conclusion is that temperature and emissive power is independent of mass.

        The temperature of the surface is only related to emissive power of the solid planet. The internal state. The rate of heating is determined by the earth surface, because solar heating is limited and constant. Decreasing temperature=increased heat transfer from sun. Increase=less solar heat transferred.

        We know this. No other explanation is needed.

        Increased absorption is caused by lower emissive power as a measure of dropping temperature. So, the observed change of “trapping” can only be caused by dropping temperature. Heating only shows up as increased emission in measurements. The imbalance, “forcing” or “trapping” are claimed by yourself to show decreasing emission. There can only be one effect of “forcing”, lower temperature.

        Can you show evidence of how increasing absorption of heat cause rising temperature in a constant limited heat flow.

  • Radiosity

    Lots of text and capslock. Still not a single word about how the correlations you claim is there, can cause the laws of physics to reverse in the atmosphere and produce a heat flow from cold wet air that heats a warm surface. We would normally say the opposite and we can easily calculate the process with pretty good accuracy. But you point to entirely different information and correlations, without calculations and physics, and claim the opposite of what we know is the scientific truth in theory and observations.

    Temperature data and reports of rising temperature locally or globally, is not enough to make the claims you do. You can´t even explain what the cause of cold air heating could be. Why can the atmosphere cause heat flowing from a very cold fluid to a much hotter surface, when physics say that exactly that, is impossible. There are even theories that we call “laws” that say you are wrong. But you persist.

  • Pingback: Yet Another Climate Myth Is Gone - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere()

  • Pingback: Facing Down Climate Doom — Wallace-Wells’ Appropriate Alarm Earns Michael Mann’s Necessary Critiques – 6sl7u0rj()

  • Pingback: Scorching 129 Degree (F) Temps Hit Iran; Severe June European Heatwave Attributed to Climate Change; Satellite Data Confirms Rapid Global Warming – 6sl7u0rj()

  • Pingback: OS CÉTICOS DAS MUDANÇAS CLIMÁTICAS SOFREM, UMA VEZ QUE A CORREÇÃO DE DADOS FEITA POR SATÉLITE MOSTRA UM AQUECIMENTO GLOBAL MAIS RÁPIDO EM 140%. |()


Related Articles

THE BRIEF

Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.

THE BRIEF

Expert analysis directly to your inbox.

Get a Daily or Weekly round-up of all the important articles and papers selected by Carbon Brief by email.