It's still going up boys and girls

[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

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.

Didn't Crick once say that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat an equal amount of water compared to air?

 

[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.

Neither do you have the time to waste finding a reliable source supporting your unsupportable claims. Apparently. Your set begins with Breitbart and moves downhill from there. You surely didn't think anyone was going to take such swill seriously.

 

[jc456]

Neither do you have the time to waste finding a reliable source supporting your unsupportable claims. Apparently.

so you don't have links? wow,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”

― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

This is the crux of AGW

 

[Crick]

Some evidence that global warming is taking place and that it is due to human activities. Paywall I'm afraid, but the abstract is available.

Computer models and the evidence of anthropogenic climate change: An epistemology of variety-of-evidence inferences and robustness analysis

To study climate change, scientists employ computer models, which approximate target systems with various levels of skill. Given the imperfection of c…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[Crick]

Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous: AGW is True

ABSTRACT
The extent of the consensus among scientists on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has the potential to influence public opinion and the attitude of political leaders and thus matters greatly to society. The history of science demonstrates that if we wish to judge the level of a scientific consensus and whether the consensus position is likely to be correct, the only reliable source is the peer-reviewed literature. During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected AGW. Thus, the consensus on AGW among publishing scientists is above 99.99%, verging on unanimity. The U.S. House of Representatives holds 40 times as many global warming rejecters as are found among the authors of scientific articles. The peer-reviewed literature contains no convincing evidence against AGW

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Subscription and open access journals from SAGE Publishing, the world's leading independent academic publisher.

journals.sagepub.com

 

[Crick]

Cook et al successfully defend their work against the critiques of Tol, find the proportion of peer reviewed papers supporting AGW at a "robust 97±1%".

Reply to ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature: A re-analysis’

Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent st…

www.sciencedirect.com

Abstract
Cook et al. (2013) (C13) found that 97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), consistent with previous independent studies. Tol (in press) (T14) agrees that the scientific literature ‘overwhelmingly supports’ AGW, but disputes C13′s methods. We show that T14′s claims of a slightly lower consensus result from a basic calculation error that manufactures approximately 300 nonexistent rejection papers. T14′s claimed impact on consensus due to the reconciliation process is of the wrong sign, with reconciliation resulting in a slight increase (<0.2%) in the consensus percentage. Allegations of data inconsistency are based on statistics unrelated to consensus. Running the same tests using appropriate consensus statistics shows no evidence of inconsistency. We confirm that the consensus is robust at 97±1%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

97% of relevant climate papers endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW)

75/77 is very convincing.

 

[Crick]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[144]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[145] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[146] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[147]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[148] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[150]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[151] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[152]

REFERENCES

144) Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–12109. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
145) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.
146) Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11(4): 048001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
147) Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
148) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
149) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
151) Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
152) Powell, J. (2019). Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Todd, I hope you don't feel as stupid as you look.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Some evidence that global warming is taking place and that it is due to human activities. Paywall I'm afraid, but the abstract is available.

Computer models and the evidence of anthropogenic climate change: An epistemology of variety-of-evidence inferences and robustness analysis

To study climate change, scientists employ computer models, which approximate target systems with various levels of skill. Given the imperfection of c…

www.sciencedirect.com

Models =/= scientific proof

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”

― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

This is the crux of AGW

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[144]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[145] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[146] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[147]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[148] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[150]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[151] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[152]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Todd, I hope you don't feel as stupid as you look.

If only science were done by Consensus! You could pay people to get the results you want!

“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”

― Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow

This is the crux of AGW

 

[Crick]

Frank, the complaint by deniers here that "science is not done by consensus" is a common one. It is often accompanied by the counter that a theory should be falsifiable and that it should be tested for repeatability and the ability to make accurate predictions. I fully agree that hypotheses and theories should be falsifiable and that they should be tested for repeatability and the ability to make accurate predictions. But I am left with the question for you: WHO is to do these tests? WHO is to determine whether or not a theory is falsifiable? And the only thing I can take from the manner that you and your colleagues present these arguments is that you believe every individual with an interest in such topics is personally responsible to conduct such tests on all theories they wish to test. If that is not the case Frank, then, again WHO should be doing these things? WHO should determine whether a paper - submitted for publication to a refereed journal describing a given hypothesis (ie, a proposed theory) and describing background, reasoning, experiments and their results, satisfied predictions and conclusions, proposing that this hypothesis is worth deeming a valid theory - should be accepted as valid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[144]

This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[146] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[147]

Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[148] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[150]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[151] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[152]

REFERENCES

144) Anderegg, William R L; Prall, James W.; Harold, Jacob; Schneider, Stephen H. (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–12109. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872.
145) Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.
146) Tol, Richard S J (1 April 2016). "Comment on 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature'". Environmental Research Letters. IOP Publishing. 11(4): 048001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001. ISSN 1748-9326.
147) Cook, John; Oreskes, Naomi; Doran, Peter T.; Anderegg, William R. L.; Verheggen, Bart; Maibach, Ed W.; Carlton, J. Stuart; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Skuce, Andrew G.; Green, Sarah A.; Nuccitelli, Dana (April 2016). "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming". Environmental Research Letters. 11 (4): 048002. Bibcode:2016ERL....11d8002C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002. ISSN 1748-9326.
148) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
149) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150) Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
151) Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
152) Powell, J. (2019). Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Todd, I hope you don't feel as stupid as you look.

Thanks for the link below......

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[145]

Doran and Zimmerman (2009)

2009

82%

3146

Earth scientists

97%

77

Climatologists who are active publishers of climate research

Human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures

The N is 77.....as I said, mockingly, 75/77 is very convincing.

I how you understand how silly you look.

 

[Crick]

I was quite familiar with Doran and Zimmerman and statistically - and as can be seen from all the follow on surveys - their results were quite accurate. AGW is almost universally accepted as valid among publishing climate scientists. That is irrefutable. There is no debate.

 

[jc456]

Some evidence that global warming is taking place and that it is due to human activities. Paywall I'm afraid, but the abstract is available.

Computer models and the evidence of anthropogenic climate change: An epistemology of variety-of-evidence inferences and robustness analysis

To study climate change, scientists employ computer models, which approximate target systems with various levels of skill. Given the imperfection of c…

www.sciencedirect.com

Always models! I like model cars myself

 

[jc456]

I was quite familiar with Doran and Zimmerman and statistically - and as can be seen from all the follow on surveys - their results were quite accurate. AGW is almost universally accepted as valid among publishing climate scientists. That is irrefutable. There is no debate.

How many out of how many? Hey are scientists who don’t agree smarter than you?

 

[Crick]

I was quite familiar with Doran and Zimmerman and statistically - and as can be seen from all the follow on surveys - their results were quite accurate. AGW is almost universally accepted as valid among publishing climate scientists. That is irrefutable. There is no debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was quite familiar with Doran and Zimmerman and statistically

Awesome!

So show us the math they used to get to 97%.

 

[Crick]

The consensus among publishing climate scientists is in excess of 99%. Your objections - every single one of them - are complete shite. If you really want to look that stupid, by my guest.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You won't show the math? Coward.