Climate Change

No Global Warming Hiatus After All Redux?

Sometimes climate science just doesn't seem all that "settled."

|

GlobalWarmingQuestionsAndrewParfenovDreamstime
Andrew Parfenov/Dreamstime

A new study bolsters the controversial 2015 study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researchers that adjusted sea surface temperatures in an attempt to take account of measurement changes from ships to scientific buoys. After the adjustments were made to the record, the researchers reported:

Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a "slowdown" in the increase of global surface temperature.

The NOAA researchers concluded that the oceans are warming at 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, which is nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This rate is similar the warming that occurred between 1970 and 1999.

As I noted at the time: "It could be that everyone else is wrong and the new study is right; but it could be also that it is an exercise in confirmation bias. Only time and more research will tell."

Interestingly, a February 2016 article by prominent proponents of man-made climate change in the journal Nature Climate Change essentially contradicted the NOAA study and reported:

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.

As I noted at the time, Nature News reported:

An apparent slowing in the rise of global temperatures at the beginning of the twenty-first century, which is not explained by climate models, was referred to as a "hiatus" or a "pause" when first observed several years ago. Climate-change sceptics have used this as evidence that global warming has stopped. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.

Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real.

Now comes a new study in Science Advances by the independent group of researchers associated with Berkeley Earth which parses the sea surface data and finds that the adjustments made in the NOAA study are largely correct. The study notes that the modern buoys tend to have a cold bias compared to those made earlier by oceangoing ships. Once this bias is taken into account sea surface temperatures have been rising steadily which suggests that there has been no "hiatus" in global warming. The press release from the University of California, Berkeley notes:

The new study, which uses independent data from satellites and robotic floats as well as buoys, concludes that the NOAA results were correct. The paper will be published Jan. 4 in the online, open-access journal Science Advances.

"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said lead author Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group. …

BuoyDataBerkeleyEarth
Berkeley Earth

"Only a small fraction of the ocean measurement data is being used by climate monitoring groups, and they are trying to smush together data from different instruments, which leads to a lot of judgment calls about how you weight one versus the other, and how you adjust for the transition from one to another," Hausfather said. "So we said, 'What if we create a temperature record just from the buoys, or just from the satellites, or just from the Argo floats, so there is no mixing and matching of instruments?'"

In each case, using data from only one instrument type – either satellites, buoys or Argo floats – the results matched those of the NOAA group, supporting the case that the oceans warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade over the past two decades, nearly twice the previous estimate. In other words, the upward trend seen in the last half of the 20th century continued through the first 15 years of the 21st: there was no hiatus.

"In the grand scheme of things, the main implication of our study is on the hiatus, which many people have focused on, claiming that global warming has slowed greatly or even stopped," Hausfather said. "Based on our analysis, a good portion of that apparent slowdown in warming was due to biases in the ship records."

Somehow the science does not seem all that "settled."

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: All Wet

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Only a fool believes there is no climate change; only a fool or a liberal (repitious I know) believes it started 150 years ago. Since the science is settled, perhaps the fools should decide what it is that is settled: is it anthropogenic global cooling, anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change. Now to my way of thinking, “climate change” is the most amorphic and would meet the needs of control freaks. It explains floods and droughts, cold summers and warm winters, cold winters and hot summers, lots of hurricanes and few hurricanes. Among the ideas of man, woman and those who can’t figure out what they are, ACC is “Gawd” for it explains all things. However from Erlich to Gore none of the predictions of computer models have proven true.
    One thing is settled; it is a cash cow for a few while providing a wonderful reason for the government to control all human activity.

    1. The language also changes over time. As more people question it, rather than debate they censor using language designed to bully people – ‘denier’ for example – or mock (see Bill Nye).

      It’s worth noting and repeating they *believe* it *started* 150 years ago because the left are either sufficiently ignorant of history and where they hold some knowledge of it simply pick their spots to fit a narrative.

      1. ‘denier’ for example – or mock (see Bill Nye)

        Indeed. As we can see from the results of this last election, taking a position on a high horse and smugly looking down at people is a pretty good way to get them to revolt against you.

        I’m a skeptic. The reason I am is a lot more nuanced than it might seem at first blush. Climate is an extremely complicated, chaotic system. It is not unlike economics in that regard. And someone who tells you they’ve worked out a way to predict the economy wants to take your money. Given that there are so many variables, it is really hard to claim that the system itself can be completely destabilized by a trace gas.

        There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is perfectly reasonable to doubt is whether “the end is nigh” alarmism is warranted. It is also important to look at who stands to gain from alarmist predictions. The ones most excited by that are socialists; enemies of capitalism. Energy is productivity and productivity makes money and they believe that creates the inequalities they seek to address.

        1. The energy made and used, and how ‘informed’ that energy is used, determine size and sophistication of an economy respectively more than any other metrics.

          Counting ‘money’ to measure such things, especially over long periods of time, is a chimera.

    2. Wht is certainly settled is that the ‘climate change’ establishment has lied anough that its ‘adjustments’, however innocent, are deeply suspicious. Its attempts to shut down debate don’t help its case either. Man caused global warming may be a thing, but I don’t trust these twerps as far as I could kick the lot of ’em.

      1. You not understanding the language of science =/= “the ‘climate change’ establishment has lied”

    3. “none of the predictions of computer models have proven true.”

      Didn’t you read the article? There have long been predictions of warmer temperatures due to increase of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The observations have proven them correct.

      1. No they haven’t. It’s quite convenient that thus study chooses an endpoint in the middle of an El Nino event to make claims about set. And the satellite troposphere measurements unquestionably show a pause. More amusing, this study does not truncate its period of interest to coincide with Karl et all because they need the El Nino run up to get their desired slope.

        This is shoddiness bordering on marcott.

        1. “And the satellite troposphere measurements unquestionably show a pause.”

          What makes you trust the satellite measurements over the buoys in the sea?

          “all because they need the El Nino run up to get their desired slope.”

          They study two El Ninos and the time between them. And they find a warming trend, as one would predict given the continued emission of heat-trapping gases.

          1. What makes you trust the satellite measurements over the buoys in the sea?

            What makes you trust the ship temperatures over the buoy temperatures?

            1. I defer to the scientists at the scene.

              1. I defer to the scientists at the scene.

                If you don’t understand the science then perhaps you should stop flapping your gums.

                1. “If you don’t understand the science then perhaps you should stop flapping your gums.”

                  I don’t think the science is particularly problematic. If you think that buoy measurements shouldn’t be adjusted, you can make the case, perhaps embark on your own research effort, even. That’s what anyone with an understanding of science can do.

                  1. I don’t think the science is particularly problematic.

                    Of course you don’t because you have no idea what it is … for you it is just virtue signaling.

                    1. Say what you want, all of you, but as an engineer, I am skeptical of anyone who draws conclusions and predicts End-Of-Life-As-We-Know-It from a 150-year long graph and linear or exponential extrapolation of the lines.

                      For the past year or two, I’ve been asking ALL such proponents one “simple question”….

                      “Unless you tell me that the Vostok Ice Core data are Wrong, you need to be able to tell us all Exactly What Caused ALL of the Previous Major Ice Ages.”

                      I’ve been asking that question for years, and here are ALL of the answers I’ve received….

                    2. ” for you it is just virtue signaling.”

                      I don’t understand what you are talking about. I wrote that scientists have predicted that emission of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere will increase the temperature and an increase has been observed.

      2. There have long been predictions of warmer temperatures due to increase of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The observations have proven them correct.

        Adjusted data is not observations so your conclusions don’t hold. FYI, Karl took the buoy data, compared it to the ship data, then adjusted the buoy data up .12 degrees. What is odd about this is the buoy’s were deployed specifically for measuring temperature and are accurate to better than 0.2 degree’s C. The ship data is maybe 1 degree C.

        1. “Adjusted data is not observations so your conclusions don’t hold.”

          The data is derived from observed temperatures. Does ignoring bias in temperature measurement lead to more accurate results? I wouldn’t have thought so. Do you think the efforts to measure the temperature in the Arctic more completely is also somehow scientifically illegitimate?

          1. The data is derived from observed temperatures.

            Notice that you ignored what I previously wrote:

            Karl took the buoy data, compared it to the ship data, then adjusted the buoy data up .12 degrees. What is odd about this is the buoy’s were deployed specifically for measuring temperature and are accurate to better than 0.2 degree’s C. The ship data is maybe 1 degree C.

            Do you take pride in being an dishonest dope to cover your obvious ignorance?

            1. “Do you take pride in being an dishonest dope to cover your obvious ignorance?”

              It’s the trend that is in question here. Is it getting warmer, cooler, or staying the same?

              1. It’s the trend that is in question here. Is it getting warmer, cooler, or staying the same?

                Before or after the dubious adjustments? Before the temperature had flat lined. It took adjusting the accurate buoy data to line up with the rather dubious ship data to create a warming trend. And that is not all. After adjusting the buoy data the authors then declared the adjusted buoy data more reliable and weigh it heavier in the statistical analysis.

                1. “It took adjusting the accurate buoy data to line up with the rather dubious ship data to create a warming trend.”

                  How would you suggest dealing with this discrepancy in a way that doesn’t result in a warming trend?

                  1. How would you suggest dealing with this discrepancy in a way that doesn’t result in a warming trend?

                    You totally missed the point. IT ISN’T ABOUT GETTING THE RESULT YOU WANT.

                    You don’t use measurements that have an error margin that are at best + or – 1 degree to correct measurements that have error margin that are an order of magnitude less.

                    1. “IT ISN’T ABOUT GETTING THE RESULT YOU WANT.”

                      Had the data been adjusted in a way that satisfied you, would there still be a warming trend?

      3. Not exactly. Most computer models continue to over-estimate the exact amount of warming, often significantly. If I predict that the price of gasoline will increase by $1/gallon in the next year, and a year later the price has increased by $0.25/gallon, does that prove my prediction correct?

        I have yet to here of a model that can consistently post-cast. (That is, if your model is correct, feeding it known data from the past should allow it to correctly “predict” the present.) If they can’t even do that, I’m hesitant to put a lot of faith in their forecasts.

        1. My weather forecaster has trouble with tomorrow’s weather.

  2. “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

    1. And he who controls the data “corrections” controls the climate change debate.

  3. Guess who just got back today
    Them wild-eyed buoys that had been away
    Haven’t changed that much to say
    But man, I still think them cats are crazy

    1. White Punks on Dope

  4. Bad buoys, bad buoys
    Whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do
    When they come for you

    1. Typically they just keep on floating unless they’ve sunk.

      1. UnCivilServant dislikes frivolous lyric changes.

    2. You really have a lot of gull.

  5. NOAA’s record on fidelity is not that great. I’d like to see a skeptical review of their “Adjustment” methodology by someone not financially dependant upon either governments or scaremongering.

    1. But in June last year, a study in Science claimed that the hiatus was just an artefact which vanishes when biases in temperature data are corrected.

      Because we know that adjustments which only ever go in one direction are more accurate than actual measurements.

      1. “actual measurements.”

        What is the actual measurement of the earth’s temperature?

    2. “Hey, this data sucks….what the &$%# can we do?”

      “….Adjust the data!”

    3. And I’m SURE that a group named Berkely Earth doesn’t have an agenda that would affect the outcome.

    4. “I’d like to see a skeptical review…”

      Nothing is stopping you from putting up the money to research this or any other question you have.

      1. Except for the lack of money.

        1. I suggest the oil business. They’re rolling in money and have an interest in discounting the whole global warming thing. Trouble is, being, in the end, a collection of corporate drones, they’re as deeply in thrall to political correctness and science as anyone. And they have a business to run. If they started telling us how global warming was a Chinese conspiracy, investors would pull out in droves.

  6. Somehow the science does not seem all that “settled.”

    I think it works like Papal infallibility.

    The Pope is always infallible now, no matter how many times he’ll tell you he was wrong before. Because now he is right, telling you he was wrong, therefore he was really infallible all along.

    1. Norman, coordinate!

    2. Norman, coordinate!

      1. Squirrels, coordinate!

    3. Was having trouble understanding what PayPal accuracy had to do with the article. Man, Ron needs to post these later in the day when coffee has settled in a bit more.

      1. The Coffee is never settled.

        1. Papal obfuscation of kid rape is never settled.

  7. Ron, the satellite data you’ve been presenting for a decade simply doesn’t match with this. The Global Warming Updates have shown no such trend.

    Do you or they have any explanation of that?

    1. They even have an individual satellite curve. Shouldn’t it match, or at least show the same trend?

      1. Don’t worry, it will match after they “correct” it.

        1. Think this is about measuring sea-surface temps; satellites are whole surface, the curves necessarily don’t have to match.

          1. 71% of the earth is covered by Ocean
            So the curve should basically match
            If anything, what I’ve always heard is that the land measurements are increasing faster

            But you have a point.
            To do an apples to apples comparison, the satellite data should be limited to the ocean.

  8. I love how their graph uses a 0.4 degree differential spread acress the Y-Axis to make it look more ominous. A full half degree if you count the margins.

    1. + 3 year “climate”

    2. supporting the case that the oceans warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade over the past two decades

      In the solar cycle model, the low point of the current cycle was around the 1970s. We’re currently near a peak in that model’s predictive curve. Given that the cycle is eighty to a hundred years from peak to peak, a twenty-year warming tend does not imply what the anthropocentric argument wants it to.

    3. Note that without the El Ni?o 2015-16 data the best fit is almost flat. This is classic cherry picking since we are just leaving El Ni?o.

      1. *ding* winner!

    4. When I was in grad school, I changed the axis on a graph of assay data for a paper we were submitting to show a more dramatic effect, since it was very hard to see otherwise and my advisor almost threw me out. I should have just transferred to a program in environmental science or public health.

  9. So how big a difference does it make if the average ocean temperature is zero degrees or 2/10 a degree? Are fish really that sensitive to temperature? (I have to honestly admit my ignorance here, I really didn’t know the oceans were that cold. I knew the polar areas, the North Atlantic and the far south and so on, were cold but I would have thought the vast quantity of warmer waters in the tropical and temperate zones would have offset that somewhat and the average temperature would be somewhere around 15 celsius. But if the learned folks at UC Berkeley are publishing a graph that clearly shows the sea surface temperature as being right around zero, I have to trust they know what they’re talking about.)

    1. The graph is not of absolute temperature, it’s differential from a set point.

      1. At least I hope it is, that label does imply your interpretation.

        1. I have to disagree with your “imply” there – I may not speak English more gooder than a UC Berkeley climatological science-type person, but I know what the label on the axis says. I’m simply saying what the axis says it’s saying, you’re assuming facts not in evidence if you’re simply assuming the axis is mislabeled and really should be labeled to identify it as the change in sea surface temperature.

          Which was kinda my point – if they can’t even be trusted to correctly label a graph, do you really trust that the data going into the graph are unquestionably correct?

          1. Hush, look and be stunned by the linear fit. To infinity and beyond!

      2. it’s differential from a set point

        Does anybody know what it is? I would like to know what the average temperature at the surface of the Earth’s Oceans should be. Or are they taking readings from the same locations and supplying the average difference in temperature of those? If that’s the case, do all the locations show a rise in temperature, or do some cool?

        1. From what analyses I’ve read of the datasets, some stations do show temperature changes counter to the general trend. I can’t say if they take the average first or average the differentials without haivng seen the methodology write-up.

          1. Seems to me there are a lot of factors that can influence water temperature that would make this difficult to rely on. Fluctuating warmer or cooler currents, ocean floor volcanic activity, etc.

            1. And yet they assert climatic differences of less than a degree with the certainty of the divine.

              1. Ordained divinity by a certain group of the political class… where have I heard that before? And seriously, how long before I can literally challenge AGW on the grounds that it is the establishment of a religion by the Feds?

        2. It’s the local temporal deviance from a multi-year average. Generally the latter is taken from around 1980-2000 give or take a decade on either side.

  10. The study notes that the modern buoys tend to have a cold bias compared to those made earlier by oceangoing ships.

    Since when did buoys and ships become temperature measurement devices and how did they acquire the ability to have preferences?

    1. Keep in mind that most of the older sea temperature record is taken from ships’ logs – which are not scientific vessels equipped with scientific instruments. Ships have to monitor the temperature of the intake water they use for cooling the ship’s engines, which means their instruments are the equivalent of the temperature gauge on your car’s dashboard. If it’s accurate to within a few degrees, that’s close enough. Not exactly the sorts of precision instruments you want to use if you’re trying to measure tenths of a degree per decade.

      And then there’s the problem of how variable the depth of the intake pipes are on various ships and the question of how deep the Brits have set their temperature sensors on their extensive network of buoys. The Americans claim the Brits are set too deep and therefore their data can and should be ignored, the Brits point out that setting them shallower leads to anomalous readings due to whether it’s sunny or cloudy or the water is dead calm or choppy. And some people point out that the ship intake pipes from which the Americans have gotten so much of their data are frequently deeper than the British buoys.

      1. In other words the data from ship’s intake is good data for the ship’s engineer but totally worthless for the global warming scammers.

  11. These guys are like mob accountants. ‘ What’s 2+2? What do you want it to be?’

    1. Mob accountant? Sounds like your typical CPA.

      1. I wish mine was like that. I tried once to pull a 2+2 = 5 move and was left with nothing but a stoic stare. ‘Fine, fine 2+2=4’. Sheesh, talk about by the book.

  12. the independent group of researchers associated with Berkeley Earth

    Independent. Well, no, not exactly. They live on the suffrage of grants. But in their literature, they use the word “independent” over and over, which makes me a bit skeptical of their independence. Their major deal seems to be shale advocacy, which makes sense when you see who the principals are.

    1. “Independant” meaning “Not NOAA” not “Unbiased”

    2. Precisely. “Independent” implies “self-funded”, and speaking as someone who’s position is funded by grant money there is no one so dependent as a grantee.

      1. *whose. What’s the ETA on that edit button, guys?

  13. Nothing says “Liberty” like government imposed restrictions based upon predicative models which have predicted exactly….dick.

    Don’t give up, Ron. One of the days one HuffPo will hire you. Maybe Mother Jones. Just keep up the bullshit.

  14. I will say it again. If we are causing it then the question becomes is industrialization more beneficial to humanity than the negative effects of climate change?

    I’d say no.

    1. the question becomes is industrialization more beneficial to humanity than the negative effects of climate change?

      I’d say no.

      So… the benefits of industrialization are not more beneficial than the negative effects of climate change?

      1. Ooops. I meant yes.

        Industrialization is more beneficial. Geez. I need more coffee. Sounded like a retarded prog for a minute. I feel dirty.

    2. What negative effects?

      I wonder what the sea level was in the year 1000.

      1. I made a typo. I meant industrialization is far more beneficial. Time to poop and get a coffee.

        That is what is such bullshit about global warming. We have no statistical data on temperatures from even 300 years ago.

        Whether you believe in a young earth or an old earth, 150 years of temperature data isn’t enough to establish a reliable trend.

  15. So, tropical species of coral are moving north?

    Cool.

    *dusts off scuba gear

  16. SOME aspects of the science are settled; others are not.

    1. SOME aspects of the science are settled

      Like what?

      1. You can always follow the money. Settled.

    2. With science nothing is ever settled. That is the heart of the scientific method; skepticism.

  17. Ron, what the hell is wrong with you?

    A new study bolsters the controversial 2015 study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researchers that adjusted sea surface temperatures in an attempt to take account of measurement changes from ships to scientific buoys. After the adjustments were made to the record, the researchers reported:

    They keep saying, over and over that they altered the data. Over and over again and again.

    And yet you–and all the AGW faithful still act as if each of these webs of lies are the true word of your god, handed down and utterly valid.

    There is no science here, Ron.

    1. Well, you see, they altered the data in a “good” way, you know, to save the polar bears and kittens and shit !

  18. Look, I don’t think we should let this denialist obsession with getting the facts exactly right interfere with the ultimate truthiness of climate change. I mean, charts, schmarts, amirite? Let’s hurry up and pass some hastily-written legislation before another polar bear dies!

    1. Let’s get a few whiny celebrities to almost cry on the air too. Then flip the switch in the brains of all high school science teachers who are leftist robots for this stuff.

  19. If in the past the ships had a warm bias, shouldn’t the adjusted data be below the old? Please help me out here. What does this chart mean with respect to the adjustment…..what is “old NOAA” and what is “new NOAA”? When did the modern buoys come into play? It is not clear from this chart why the adjustment is needed or where.

    1. This has been a continuing issue. They’re always plotting a differential from some baseline, and it seems time and again the past is being reinterpreted as colder to get a bigger differential.

      All the plots you look at have different baselines, you can’t compare one to another.

      In terms of a public record, they should be plotting absolute temperature values so one paper can be easily compared to another.

  20. There is a major hole in the model that a warming atmosphere warms the oceans as quickly as what the experts claim to be seeing-heat transfers very poorly from air to water. Yes, the polar ice cap may be shrinking from a warmer ocean, but the majority of the heat can’t be coming from the atmosphere, or the air would have to be much hotter for it warm the water enough to cause melting and that’s not what anyone is seeing.

    Also, ships emit heat, so the ship temperature readings I would think would be higher than buoys or robots.
    These people are complete idiots.

  21. Why are we measuring water temperature to find data to show a warming trend?

    And, once again, as with NOAA stations, the warming only shows when the data is “corrected”.

    We have raw surface data (no trend), we have surface reference stations (no trend), we have satellite data (perhaps a very small trend). What are they all missing that the water temps will “prove”? Why isn’t this regarded as what it apparently is – a desperate search for data that will show a trend, source, accuracy, and relevance be damned?

    /Napolitano OFF

    1. You have to adjust data from multiple instruments. Have to. Even if you calibrate them all at the same time and same place. In NOAA or the buoy case, you have differnt instruments calibrated an placed at different times. That isn’t madness of itself.

      What most people who have worked with instruments would expect to see is a random bias. Yet somehow, every sensor (NOAA surface stations and now buoys) manufactured before AGW became a thing has a “cold bias”. That is what stinks to me. They’re already placing their data on a slope, then trying to find a small signal on the same slope. It isn’t impossible, but you would expect a trend in the direction of your bias if a statistical artefact were to emerge.

      I’d like to see some random swaps of old sensors with new to see what the actual raw data between them look like.

  22. Holy crap.

    I am starting to think this whole ACC thing is bullshit!

    When you think about, not one island and its population has been swallowed up by rising sea levels.

    Could the government have been lying all this time or am I just an uninformed redneck?

  23. In no other scientific field it is acceptable to go back after the fact and adjust the variables of what made you wrong. Until we get a model that accurately predicts global temperature changes over even 5 years, I believe no model.

    1. Is propaganda a scientific field?

      When your income depends on tax payer money to ride around in an incredibly expensive boat and airplane to collect data, you can bet that adjusting variables has to be scientific.

      The NOAA and University boats where I live cost a fortune to operate. I know from selling them supplies. Unreal how much and often these cruises blow through money.

  24. Bentley . true that Ashley `s blurb is good… last week I got Lotus Esprit sincee geting a check for $5815 this-last/five weeks and-even more than, ten/k lass-month . without a doubt it is the easiest work I’ve ever done . I began this seven months/ago and almost immediately startad earning minimum $77… per-hour . more tips here

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  25. include SST for 2016 in the re-plot and get back to us on that busted pause.

  26. I would be cautious about any such estimation made by global warming zealots, who all too often see (and compute) what they want to have happened, But at any rate, the fact that the science isn’t settled contradicts the alarmists, who (as usual) claim it is.

  27. But the ocean is not warmed by the atmosphere, it is warmed by solar input and geothermal sources.

  28. I’m an APL programmer and implementer . I continue my refrain : Show us the equations .
    The paradigm that GHGs make the bottoms of atmospheres hotter than their tops ( 3% in the case of Earth , 125% in the case of Venus ) has neither supporting quantitative equation nor experimental verification .

  29. Note what is missing here:

    A. Is the “unsettled” minor temperature increase due to man, or natural variations like solar output?
    B. Is an increase in temperature better or worse for man?
    C. The cost/benefit trade offs of the alternative approaches (e.g. adjusting to a changing climate, trying to control the climate, etc.)

    There has been little research into the benefits of warming, well because it doesn’t fit the narrative government control freaks want. If we want to believe models, then perhaps we should believe the dual dynamo model of the sun which predicts that we’ll have a little ice age starting within a decade and lasting for several decades.
    sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.