It's still going up boys and girls

[Toddsterpatriot]

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So much for recycling…

Bad link.

The quote is valid, I was then a regular visitor of her site, and know Alan through comments exchanged in several blog posting in her website, read that link then and the quote is honest, but governments and the IPCC have since then changed their websites to disappear many of their inconvenient documents since they are detrimental to their CO2 delusion. Go look at the new IPCC website, it has been greatly changed, can't find stuff that used to be easy to find, now very hard to find or has vanished completely.

Alan Siddons is a Radio Chemist.

The quote is valid,

If a CO2 molecule emits a photon, another CO2 molecule can't absorb it?

That's just wrong.

 

[Flash]

View attachment 476779

NASA and NOAA both lost their credibility when they were caught red handed fabricating data.

Trump tried to purge the organization of the lying bastards but it looks like they are back under Joe Dufus.

They need to learn how to calibrate their satellite temperature senors. They make stupid claims of .5 Degree F temperature changes but their sensors are +/- 4-6 Degrees F.

Let's see some links discussing how NASA and NOAA were caught red-handed fabricating data.

Let's see some links supporting your claims(lies) ...

Here you go: AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

Now let's see your reports of NASA and NOAA being caught red-handed fabricating data.

There about 200 other articles if you are still confused Moon Bat

NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

NOAA shows the Earth red hot in December, with record heat in central Africa. NOAA Reported The map above is fake. NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from central Africa. The…

realclimatescience.com

NASA / NOAA Climate Data Is Fake Data

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!"

www.breitbart.com

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!

"NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history." - Ice Age Now

NASA and NOAA are using fake climate data, says Tony Heller. They are claiming record heat in areas where there are no thermometers. That’s how they made 2016 into a record warm year. “The map above is fake,” says Tony Heller. “NOAA has almost no temperature data from Africa, and none from...

www.iceagenow.info

“NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history.”

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NEWSRELEASE.pdf

NASA AND NOAA CAUGHT IN CLIMATE DATA MANIPULATION;

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering | Real Climate Science

realclimatescience.com

100% Of US Warming Is Due To NOAA Data Tampering

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA , page 1

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA , page 1

www.abovetopsecret.com

Global Warming 'Fabricated' by NASA and NOAA

 

[whitehall]

Irony? It's estimated that several records for cold temperatures will be broken on Earth Day.

 

[Crick]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Sunsettommy]

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So much for recycling…

Bad link.

The quote is valid, I was then a regular visitor of her site, and know Alan through comments exchanged in several blog posting in her website, read that link then and the quote is honest, but governments and the IPCC have since then changed their websites to disappear many of their inconvenient documents since they are detrimental to their CO2 delusion. Go look at the new IPCC website, it has been greatly changed, can't find stuff that used to be easy to find, now very hard to find or has vanished completely.

Alan Siddons is a Radio Chemist.

The quote is valid,

If a CO2 molecule emits a photon, another CO2 molecule can't absorb it?

That's just wrong.

You didn't explain why you think it is wrong..... your statement is misleading.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

“What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind.” U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
So much for recycling…

Bad link.

The quote is valid, I was then a regular visitor of her site, and know Alan through comments exchanged in several blog posting in her website, read that link then and the quote is honest, but governments and the IPCC have since then changed their websites to disappear many of their inconvenient documents since they are detrimental to their CO2 delusion. Go look at the new IPCC website, it has been greatly changed, can't find stuff that used to be easy to find, now very hard to find or has vanished completely.

Alan Siddons is a Radio Chemist.

The quote is valid,

If a CO2 molecule emits a photon, another CO2 molecule can't absorb it?

That's just wrong.

You didn't explain why you think it is wrong..... your statement is misleading.

You didn't explain why you think it is wrong.....

The energy released when an electron drops to a lower energy level is exactly the energy needed to make the same electron move back up to its previous excited state.

Why would it be less?

 

[Crick]

Hysteresis ; - )

 

[Crick]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

 

[Stryder50]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.

 

[Flash]

LOL! Then you Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule you so much.

Now the fact that we don't kiss the Black asses enough is the cause of climate change?????


AOC: “The trampling of racial justice is a cause of climate change because we are allowing folks to deny ourselves human rights...”pic.twitter.com/osVDAOIwir

Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 21, 2021

 

[Crick]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.

AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

 

[jc456]

I have presented a lot of data here. What data do you believe has been fabricated? Temperatures? CO2 levels? Ice sheet area? Glacial mass loss?

But the climate hysterics have been posting up the same graphs/maps ( in vivid color btw ) for 10 years in here and what has changed? The answer is.......nothing.

The entire world knows about the "data".........but nobody is caring. Look at how miniscule renewable energy continues to be........with no end in sight. As I pointed out ( rather astutely ) earlier this morning with a new thread, fossil fuels will dominate the energy landscape for decades to come thus proving.........nobody is caring about the data.

Skooks, for me it's this simple, it snowed in Chicago in April in the early 1900's and it snowed in April of 2021. Simply put, mother nature again proves all of crick's data immaterial. Those are the base facts. And the only ones I will give credence to. Just open your door and ask yourself, is the climate out my door today any different than 100 years ago. If the answer is no, then all of the data has to be wrong. Or the intended use of the data is wrong.

Simple

 

[jc456]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.

AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Crick, again, why is my climate the same today as it was 100 years ago? If your data is correct?

 

[jc456]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's quite simple sir, why is my climate still the same today as 100 years ago? You present all of this data and yet you can't explain that one question.

 

[jc456]

Look at a globe. Imagine the sun shining on it from the left or right. Look at the edge that faces the sun. The latitudes near the equator get sunlight from almost directly overhead. That surface is approximately perpendicular to the sun. Look at the surface up in Canada and northern Russia. That land is tilted away from the sun. Even at noon, the sun is low and its radiation is spread over far more area than at the equator. It is NOT the ideal place to grow a crop. If you had a choice between equatorial land and northern land to grow crops, you should pick the equator.

and what? that's true, anyone challenging that, it's been that way as long as the equator has been the equator. you know this correct? The temperatures above and below the tropic's is the discussion. And you have yet to show that any climate has changed above or below, let alone at the equator.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.

AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean? Does a .1C increase in the atmosphere also warm the oceans 700m deep by .5C? What's the relationship: logarithmic , exponential?

Walk me through these concepts

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We have frost here in NY!

 

[Stryder50]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.

AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean? Does a .1C increase in the atmosphere also warm the oceans 700m deep by .5C? What's the relationship: logarithmic , exponential?

Walk me through these concepts

Atmospheric CO2 doesn't do that.

Within the concept of plate tectonics, there are subduction zones/areas and expansion zones/areas. At the expansion zones/areas warm(hot) material from the Earth's mantle~magma is coming upward from the hot core regions and pushing the plates outward. This magma is the same hot material coming up and out of volcanoes and what causes much of the pressure that produces earthquakes. So it is the hot material from deep down towards the Earth's core which is seeping out of those expansion areas which is the main source of heat to the oceans' depths.

Of course this source of global warming doesn't fit the "ACC/AGW driven by atmospheric CO2" agenda~hypothesis~scam, so such is downplayed as a factor.

 

[Stryder50]

It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.

Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:


Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]

Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]

22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.

Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?

I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.

If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.

AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

Neither I, nor most others here I suspect, have time to dig through scores of pages of IPCC propaganda to try and find/determine what portions you think we should consider.

I'd suggest you engage some copy-paste excerpts to present/post. Otherwise you remain on the dustbin of the dialogue here.