Open thread Feb. 7, 2014 Dan Crawford | February 7, 2014 11:42 am Tags: open thread Comments (41) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
How many here know that we have had NO WARMING in the various datasets for many years?
How many accept that?
In the past few years we have seen several internet tools developed to perform trend analysis of the average global surface/tropospheric temperature datasets. Wood For Trees — http://woodfortrees.org/plot/
and Skeptical Science — http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Take a look at them play with them and see what is actually happening with global average temperatures. One of my favorite graphs is this: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/scale:50/plot/esrl-co2/from:1980/offset:-335/plot/rss/from:1996.6/scale:50/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.6/to/offset:-335/trend/plot/uah/from:1996.6/scale:50/plot/uah/from:1996.6/scale:50/trend
showing the divergence of atmospheric CO2 to the satellite data. I use the satellite data as it they more widely cover the globe and are more consistent than the other surface measurements which splice different types of data.
If you are interested the answer to the question: Are we in a hiatus for average global surface/tropospheric temperature? If so for how long? The tools will answer these questions.
All datasets say, YES! The longest period is 17 Yrs 5 Months in the RSS satellite dataset. That string does not appear ready to change, and some climate scientists are predicting it to actually cool for the next couple of decades. All this while CO2 continues to rise.
No warming and no cooling in the cold phase of earths cycle. What will you do when the warm phase begins in 10-15 years?
You will be destroyed. The planet can’t cool down anymore.
John Cummings claims: ” The planet can’t cool down anymore.” Really?!? We’re in an interglacial. The planet has a long history of cooling even more. Temps for this interglacial look like this:http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png Mankind has flourished in warmer average temps. Why would anyone be destroyed?
Climate is a plethora of cycles. If we are entering a multi-decadal cooling cycle we will be worse off than continuing the recent warming cycle.
“How many here know that we have had NO WARMING in the various datasets for many years?”
Well, I’m not sure that ten years qualifies as “many,” given that the data supporting the current warming span 100 years and include one plateau that ended when temperatures increased again.
Looks like warming hasn’t stopped in all datasets, though. Only the ones cherry-picked by climate change deniers. For fans of science, there appears to be an explanation for this temporary plateau:
Joel, notice the misdirection in the evolving science? The standard for decades has been warming as determined by GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES. What they are measuring is different, Ocean Heat Content. Not the same thing. Scientists married to the C/AGW theory are working over time to explain why GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES are no longer rising. Even the article cited in your article starts by recognizing the “hiatus” while CO2 is rising then continues into the misdirection.
Admitting in one paragraph and then trying to explain where the MISSING heat has gone applies a level of magic never used in the climate science previously. Why would it be different today than in the past when GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES were rising and causing all those predictions of ensuing catastrophes?
How can selecting any of the MAJOR surface/tropospheric datasets be cherry picking? Look again at the options available at the tools. Moreover, SkS is far from a skeptical blog. It was created to counter the growth of climate skeptic movement. It’s not been successful.
Use the tools to prove this statement: “Looks like warming hasn’t stopped in all datasets, though.” Clearly you have not yet done that. Here’s a start: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.9/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.33/plot/gistemp/from:2001.33/plot/rss/from:1996.6/plot/wti/from:2000.9/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/plot/uah/from:2004.75
We are seeing what skeptics have been predicting for years. Will the hiatus end? Yes, of course. They always do, but what caused both the beginning and ending is the issue, and not well understood.
The science is represented in the climate modesl, and they are performing horribly:
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong
His graph: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
Accordingly, how much confidence can we have in climate science? How can anyone keep claiming it (climate science or global warming) is settled? How can we accept the catastrophic predictions from these models? How can we accept spending billions annually to counteract what is clearly error-filled science?
If you do not know Dr Roy Spencer he is one of the two principal scientists responsible for the monthly UAH satellite data.
Roy Spencer is a senile ass. His contributions to climate science is limited to outrageous errors(one even he admitted) that make his work useless.
Full Definition of GLOBAL
: of, relating to, or involving the entire world
EM, did you have a point re: Spencer and the definition? Or just valuelessly ranting again?
I was commenting on Spencer and his for sale brand of climate science.
In terms of the definition I was simply giving you the meaning of global, as you seem to think it means something it does not.
In terms of conversation with you, I am not doing anything. Let me know when you engage in a conversation re your thoughts on climate change with a real climate scientist, I would love to read the dialogue.
“notice the misdirection in the evolving science?”
The only one engaged in misdirection is you, CoRev.
How is measuring ocean temperature not part of measuring global temperature?
If you actually knew anything about the topic, you would know that “temperature” is a measure of energy. Energy on earth is distributed across solids, liquids and gasses. To exempt the biggest bodies of liquid on the planet from measurements of global warming makes no sense. To pretend that climate scientists are wrong because they point to unprecedented warming of the world’s oceans as important reservoir of global warming just shows you are uninterested in actual climate science.
People who wish to understand whether or not global warming is occurring don’t cherry pick the data, CoRev. If you think that measuring ocean temperature rise as part of measuring global warming is “misdirection,” then you understand neither climate change nor the meaning of the word “misdirection.”
In short, you are trolling, CoRev.
Smarter trolls, please.
Joel, you’ve made a common mistake in equating Ocean Heat Content to ocean temperature. Your article equates “…researchers… RECONSTRUCTED temperatures in one part of the Pacific Ocean and found that its middle depths have been warming some 15 times faster over the past 60 years than at any other time over the past 10,000 years.” Middle depths of one part of the entire Pacific ocean have a higher reconstructed temperature? What kind of science or science reporting is that?
I used and even emphasized the common definition of what has been measured, GLOBAL AVERAGE SURFACE TEMPERATURES. You believe Middle depths of one part of the entire Pacific ocean is the same? And not an attempt at misdirection?
Furthermore, you also believe “How is measuring ocean temperature not part of measuring global temperature?” How did you come to that conclusion? Surface means surface, land and oceans.
In your article there was NO MEASUREMENT! Just a reconstruction from proxies for a small part of the Pacific. Changes in Ocean temps are measured in hundreds and thousands of a degree over a lengthy period. So how precise is that proxy as a temperature measurement? Without the paper this article is worthless.
Clearly your understanding of the science is wanting. Comparing unlikes, part of the Pacific middle levels of RECONSTRUCTED temps, to the official global datasets, makes no sense, logically and certainly not scientifically. The Pacific middle levels of RECONSTRUCTED temps, would equate to a handful of today’s ARGO buoys which actually measure temps to 2,000 meters.
And you question my understanding and knowledge of a subject you so clearly misunderstand?
Don’t you claim to be a scientist?
Yep. models are inaccurate, unless you know what they say
“Don’t you claim to be a scientist?”
No. I am a scientist. No “claim” necessary.
Just as you–faux scientific trolling nonwithstanding–don’t “claim” to be a troll. You are a troll. No “claim” necessary.
Got learn some thermodynamics, troll. Then go learn about how ocean temperatures are measured (hint: they are measured by proxy measurements, because measuring ever temperature at every point in all oceans is, you know, impossible.
Smarter trolls, please.
Because trolls are *so* literal.
“Surface means surface, land and oceans. ”
LOL! You really don’t understand thermodynamics, do you, silly troll? Obviously, you’re equating surface temperature with ocean temperature. Rookie mistake.
EM, CMIP3 runs were used over 6 years ago in AR4.. If you knew what you were presenting you would see the divergence already starting in the insert at about 2007. This 2014 and the new models are CMIP5, and they too are diverging from the observations.
EM, I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, but at least try to stay on subject and use the tools or refute the core if my comments instead of attacking sub–issues. Emotion is not a substitute for knowledge.
Joel, do a little research before spouting personal opinion and for heavens sake define your terms, ” you’re equating surface temperature with ocean temperature.” I have been consistent with my definitions of what is being calculated – GLOBAL AVERAGES for surface temps or AVERAGES for the troposphere. How are youdefining “ocean temperature”?
Joel, I’m still trying to figure out what it is you think you are saying. My two options are: 1) Climate scientists don’t know how to calculate ocean surface temps, or 2) Ocean Heat Content might be a better estimate for warming trend analysis. If #1 your hubris is showing alongside your lack of knowledge. If #2 I might agree.
Here you go CoRev.
Perfect opportunity for you to display your thoughts.
I look forward to the dialogue.
EM, you want me to comment at RC on a very old article, or here? There are a series of blogs where I no longer comment or am banned because of alternative views. RC is one, Angry Bear used also to be one.
Here, I will point out two items from the article: 1) “The RECENT SLOWER WARMING is mainly explained by the fact that in recent years the La Niña state in the tropical Pacific prevailed, in which the eastern Pacific is cold and the ocean stores more heat (2).”
2) “… the linear trend 1998-2013 in all four data sets is positive.”
Starting with item 2 we see a “cherry picked” start date to misdirect from the actual question: “Are we in a hiatus for average global surface/tropospheric temperature? If so for how long?” Therefore, we can see even using their own “cherry picked” date that item 1 (RECENT SLOWER WARMING) in some ways affirms a possible “hiatus”.
For the two I showed above with my tools example, GISS approaches ~13 years and HadCrut4 ~>13 years. C&W is a new approach to calculating the average global surface temps and although the paper is peer reviewed the approach is still not accepted. NCDC/NOAA is the basis for GISS processing.
Your referenced article us just another example of the misdirection. I look forward to your analysis of it and continued dialogue. Please remember the question.
Published data from 2013 is old?
What I want you to do is take your bs to a site with real scientists and observe the dialogue that occurs. If you are banned from RC, then direct me to the topic where it occurred.
And we have gone over this before. Do it or comment to someone else
January 1, 2014 6:26 pm
There are many topics which I do not have the ability or knowledge to deal with on an efficient basis. But I can read, and I can deal with you on climate change.
But to do so I have to figure out where the sound byte comes from, then decipher the subject and respond, knowing the response will be ignored totally or with another sound byte. I gave you the app so you can drink in some knowledge from those who certainly have the ability to deal with you.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do. Since you state you are looking “to actually find some scientists”, I will actually follow you to Tamino’s site or Skeptical science or Real Climate so you can post your thoughts and receive the responses they deserve. Just let me know where and I will show up.
BTW, real scientists absolutely destroyed your inane position on climate models. Referring them to you did no good.
So step off or step up. I have wasted enough time with you.
– See more at: http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2013/12/four-degrees-warming-by-2100.html#comments
EM, actually yes. 2013 can be very ole date in Climate Science, in particular the C&W paper has not actually been thoroughly reviewed. Peer review does not usually stand the test of time. We’ll have to wait and see for that paper. As an example of 2013 being dated already we have as an example the IPCC AR5, still to be finalized, but already showing some tattering around the edges.
I see you can not answer the challenge, and are falling back on a strawman argument: “What I want you to do is take your bs to a site with real scientists and observe the dialogue that occurs.” BS? How and what represents BS in my comments?
As far as I can tell you have yet to address my original point re: a hiatus in warming in the datasets. I even gave you the tools for doing the basic analysis, but you have consistently referred tot he misdirection/strawman arguments.
You seem to think RC, which has become a 2nd tier CS blog, adds weight to your arguments. I have not been banned there, but stopped commenting when they were ignored/thrown in their bit bucket and not printed. Others have shown how they, RC, actually edited their original comments and responses. I am banned at the others you mentioned, and several more. If their positions were so strong, why would they ban?
Why would you like to go to another site to get support for your views? It is those views on which I comment. On the luke warmer blogs, where both views are often represented it might add some impartiality to our views, but I think even there you would be surprised at how out of step are your own views. Those sites and most skeptical sites do not ban opposing views. That seems to happen most often at liberal sites. Even here at Angry Bear.
I can decipher from your jumble of Google searches, you disbelieve that there is a hiatus. You believe that it is still warming. Warming is solely due to ACO2.
Linear analysis of warming is an exercise in cherry picking. Saying this I would question why starting at a cold period, the LIA http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/gistemp/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend trumps starting at a warm period, the Holocene optimum, http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png
Here’s one explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Uif1NwcUgMU
If you wish to clarify your views, as I stated above or as clarified by yourself, I would be happy to have a dialogue, here. If you wish to choose a neutral site to comment upon, then go for it, but you must start. If you wish to use a pro-AGW site I would recommend Accuweather Climate, but my major recommendation would be Roy Spencer’s or Dr J Curry’s.
I do have my reservations of taking our personal disagreements to another venue and belaboring that site with them.
I have no desire whatsoever to play with you. Your dishonesty is only partly covered up by your language. As in this inane “old data” thing. The link was regrading the publishing of the 2013 data. It is a month after 2013 ended.
I have no intention of having a discussion with you. I gave you my reasons why. And suggesting Spencer of Curry is laughable.
But if you want to start being reasonable I have a starting place. Link a peer reviewed paper on climate change from either one of those two.
EM, your ignorance is deafening! We’ve played this game before re: peer reviewed references. Curry and Spencer have many. One of Curry’s latest: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1
Here is Spencer’s (not latest): http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603
Here’s a suggestion. Comment over at Steve Goddard’s site: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/
He has a personality similar to yours and it would be interesting to watch you two together, differing views and similar nastiness.
Want o point out where I have been dishonest? I have shown examples and/or references for my viewpoint(s). What I have seen from your is strawman arguments, and ignorant acceptance of them.
Ignorance is nothing other than a description of the depth of your knowledge on a subject you continue to claim little. I agree, but when challenged you go off on even another tangent. Address my points. I’ve given much meat for discussion. Please remember and respond to the question/point offered.
Leave Goddard out of this, he can’t help your case. Then again Curry can’t.
Seriously, that paper from Curry? We’ll go to her blog
Bart R | October 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Reply
Did the budget for this stadium wave research come from the Georgia Tech Earth Sciences account, or its cheerleading squad accounts?
And why no image credits to http://library.thinkquest.org/08aug/01606/zodiac.html ?
Let’s deconstruct the abstract:
A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data.
A made-up random collection of imagined messages from some higher power embedded by magic in weather previously cherry-picked to fit our preconceived ideas let us contrive coincidences however loosely related until we got what we wanted.
The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.
We had to massage the data a lot.
Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics.
We really had to massage the data a lot.
The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal.
We literally had to go to the ends of the Earth to massage the data.
Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal.
And even then, we still had to fudge a lot and reduce the strength of our claims.
Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic‘s freshwater balance. Earth’s rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere.
Ending up with nothing that challenges or requires amendment to AGW, the IPCC, the clear and unambiguous influence of moderate volcanoes, or the vastly rationally superior views expressed by Jennifer Francis about the influence of AGW on the Jet Stream as supported by direct high quality unfiltered evidence, and through the Jet Stream on extreme weather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY0RdXmLGdU
Waste of time.
But not as big a waste as your Spencer thing.
“Spencer and Braswell’s study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit.”
he bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).
UPDATE 3 Sep 2011: Wolfgang Wagner, has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. Wagner concluded the Spencer’s paper was “fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal”.
Sorry, you got nothin with these things. Go spend more time on goodard’s site.
Maybe you will trip across a scientist there, or another shmuck you can echo comments with.
For those who want to understand the scientific data on global warming and how energy is accumulating in the atmosphere and in the oceans, there is a new scientific article out in Nature Climate Change on this, summarized here by Reuters:
Again, the current apparent plateau really just represents a temporary shift in where the increasing energy is being stored, not a reversal in warming. Elementary physics says that energy can move between solids, liquids and gasses, and that it is total energy that matters.
“My two options are: 1) Climate scientists don’t know how to calculate ocean surface temps,”
Do you have evidence for this assertion, or do you just not understand the science?
“or 2) Ocean Heat Content might be a better estimate for warming trend analysis.”
There is no reason to call it “better,” since this isn’t an either/or question. You see, CoRev, energy is energy. Whether it is in the global atmosphere, the global surface or the global oceans, it must all be considered. So no one measure is “better,” Only measuring all together gives a complete inventory. Pretending, as you do, that only one type of measure must be selected to the exclusions of others simply shows your lack of knowledge.
” I have been consistent with my definitions of what is being calculated – GLOBAL AVERAGES for surface temps or AVERAGES for the troposphere. How are youdefining “ocean temperature”?”
Since the definition of “troposphere” refers exclusively to air and excludes water, any definition of “ocean temperature” would exclude the troposphere. It is telling that you had to ask.
I suggest you actually read the science instead of the propaganda. Once you do, you will understand how the data on ocean temperatures come about and what they mean for energy flux on the planet. I suggest you stop adding to the fund of meaningless bafflegab you’ve already left on this thread and learn some actual, you know, climate science. Take all the time you need.
EM closes with: “you can echo comments with.” and I have yet to see any response to my points. But, what did he do? COPY COMMENTS without crediting. Tsk, tsk. Address my points. I’ve given much meat for discussion. Please remember and respond to the question/point offered.
As for J Curry’s paper, it easy to find alternative views on papers. A reasonable commenter would at least put quote marks around their quotes and the links to them.
I didn’t expect you to like their papers. You asked for peer reviewed papers. The implication in your request was that they did/could not have any. How many more do you need? They have many! Most would elicit the same response from you. As do my comments.
More importantly in a blog post with almost 1,200 comment EM picks one by and individual of like attitude as his. Let me quote the very first response to his BartR reference “Brian H | October 10, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Typically juvenile and stupid.” http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-396531 ( EM see how its done!)
After much typical Bart R attitude generating comment s this particular comment thread ends with: ”
jim2 | October 11, 2013 at 12:58 pm |
It certainly causes hot air to fly from Bart’s mouth.” http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/#comment-396925
Illogical abuse seems to be your and Bart R’s comfort zone.
IIRC BartR has been banned along with several of his sock puppets from several blog sites just for this kind of abusive behavior. But I could be wrong. Old age and everything.
EM, why the S Goddard comments? Try it you might like his site. 😉 You’d fit right in, although the recipient of your own bad behavior.
When are you going to address my points?
Joel. I see more confusion and misdirection. A scientist would realize the difference in tropospheric (actually lower) average temps would include that part of the lower troposphere over the oceans/seas. That covers the satellite datasets.
Now about the AVERAGE GLOBAL SURFACE TEMPERATURES in the other datasets. Let me start by highlighting the key word in the description, SURFACE. So its AVERAGE SURFACE temperatures. Now nothing is quite the exact surface. Over time the definition and standards for what SURFACE actually meant. For many decades land stations have been standardized at 2 meters for the height of the temperature equipment.
The oceans have varied somewhat more. Many of the early temp measurements were done by dropping a bucket over the side. collecting water. then actually measuring the temp of the water contained in the bucket. With the advent of engine driven ships the temps were taken at the engine cooling inlets. Since there is no standard for where and and how deep they are placed on a whole variety of sized for ships, the surface depth was also quite variable.
The latest and main sources ocean SURFACE measurement are from the ARGO buoy,. fixed buoys, and research ships ad hoc buoys.
Why did you ignore the obvious challenge: “How are youdefining “ocean temperature”?””, and then go off on another strawman tangent, “how the data on ocean temperatures come about and what they mean for energy flux on the planet.”?
I just explained my understanding of the history of collecting OCEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURES, your have yet to explain what you meant by ocean temperatures.
Joel you wrote while I was answering EM and I didn’t notice you had two others. Let me ask this. Why did you not include this in your comment: “Joel, I’m still trying to figure out what it is you think you are saying. My two options are: 1)…” Kinda hard to ignore I was asking what you meant, but you did anyway — “Do you have evidence for this assertion, or do you just not understand the science? ” My evidence is your obvious ignorance and unwillingness to admit it.
I agree with your explanation of why OHC might be a better measure for measuring climate change, but it isn’t the approach normally used. That is the AVERAGE GLOBAL SURFACE/LOWER TROPOSPHERIC temperature and the trend analysis of its changes.
I hope you noticed that the article you referenced in your: Joel
February 9, 2014 2:16 pm comment started with: “Stronger winds which have cooled the surface of the Pacific Ocean could explain what is likely to be a temporary slowdown in the pace of global warming this century, researchers said.” Another euphemism for the hiatus I showed above, and another article trying to explain why.
You have yet to explain what you meant by ocean temperatures.
I am not interested in reading your copied, edited and pasted comments from silly blogs from silly(not to mention dishonest) people.
When you decide you know enough to take your silly unscientific comments and have them subjected to comments from real, serious scientists, let me know.
EM, copying and pasting from your own reference? Edited? How??? “…from silly blogs from silly (not to mention dishonest) people.” I didn’t bring up JC’s blog and BartR was your selection. You seem to think that on non-liberal blogs bad behavior goes unnoticed and unchallenged.
You haven’t had good results with your Climate comments. Worse, you have yet to address my points. Anytime you want to have a real dialog just ask.
get a bucket and fill it with cold water. colder the better.
add about a bucketful of ice (never mind the spill, it won’t matter to the experiment).
put a good thermometer into the bucket and record the temperature.
keep a record of temp every five minutes.
predict what you think will be the results.
tell us what the results actually are.
Dale, your point being? Did you actually have a comment on what I presented at the beginning? No one else has, because its actual data! Its not emotional strawmen, nor copy and paste Google searches, or in your case even another unrelated (fill in the blank).
Use the tools and see that is actually happening. Be surprised.
LAUNCH DRYICE TO THE MOON, sequester CO2 securely for the long term. Pay for it with a CARBON TAX.
Solutions, Folks, its gotten too late for arguments.
my point being that if you actually DID some science, you might UNDERSTAND some science. In this case you might learn something about the relationships between “heat” and “temperature.” especially something about how you can add heat to a water-ice mixture without raising its temperature.
thing is, waving your arms and “talking like a scientist” isn’t fooling anyone except yourself.
Dale, that’s what I expected. No relationship to the topic, and pointed to Joel’s comments and not mine. This comment of yours left out a word: “…you can add heat to a water-ice mixture without (MEASURABLY) raising its temperature.”
Of all the people to make remarks about science, you who claimed to have read book once many decades ago and was convinced about the science, should not throw stones.
As this comment indicates you can not, and almost never, actually discuss the science. What do you have to say about the data?
Let me explain what could have been discussed and why it was not.
The data consistently show a hiatus in the warming of Global Surface Average Temperatures. The reason for a hiatus has yet to be adequately explained, but its mere existence diminishes the impact of ANTHROPOGENIC causes for warming.
The growing number of studies explaining the why of a hiatus all point to NATURAL causes further diminishing the impact of ANTHROPOGENIC causes for warming. Without those impacts ANTHROPOGENIC caused catastrophes are also reduced. Without them there is no CLIMATE need to change out actions to reduce ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 (ACO2) and ACO2 caused AGW.
Catastrophic AGW is such a deeply routed belief it has gone beyond science to a religious belief. Any explanation diminishing CAGW is fought, ignored, and the proponent attacked.
But the current Climate Science explaining the causes, all pointing to nature and not mankind, is coming from the main stream climate scientists previously supporting CAGW. Attacking these scientists leads to cognitive dissonance as they were heroes of the cause previously.
Accordingly we see a plethora of comments on unrelated subject. Many of them angry, but angry at what and whom? Their heroes are leading the charge against their CAGW/ACO2 religion.
i should know that it’s not worth the time to try to talk to you. but every once in a while i think a new approach might get through the fog.
i think the best thing you could do for science would be to turn yourself into a psychology research lab. they could learn a lot from you.
Dale, you just confirmed my comment re: cognitive dissonance and a plethora of comments on unrelated subjects.