'The latest salvo in an ongoing row over global-warming trends claims that warming has indeed slowed down this century.

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 corrected1.

Now a prominent group of researchers is countering that claim, arguing in Nature Climate Change that even after correcting these biases the slowdown was real2.
Related stories

    2015 declared the hottest year on record
    Climate-change ‘hiatus’ disappears with new data
    Atlantic Ocean key to global-warming pause

More related stories

“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.”

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.'

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

Yes there is, No there isn't.

From the same article
Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

“What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions],” Karl says. “It is simply not possible to gain insight on that underlying trend from short, segmented 10- to 20-year periods.”

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence.

http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414

I couldn't agree more.
In a dynamic system like the Earth there is always going to be short term divergences. The long term trend however is for warming.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory.

Yep. The IPCC used "hiatus"
'The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04oC per decade over 998–2012, compared to 0.11oC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it. '

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Both Karl and Schmidt are defending Karl's paper. What did you expect?

lee wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory. Yep. The IPCC used "hiatus"

Quote:

Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering.

It is a common tactic of the climate change deniers to argue over definitions and semantics.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

It is a common tactic of the climate change deniers to argue over definitions and semantics.

So your argument is definitions don't matter? What is your definition of Climate Change? That it it is only the anthropogenic component?

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the climate doesn't care for discussion ...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2015/20150106_global_Tmean_plot.png

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2015/20150106_Tmean_plot.png

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2015/20150106_SSTa_plot.png

Hey random

No one is disputing that the Earth has been warming, we can all see the data.

But we can also see that the IPCC computer models are WRONG, we know this through observation the last 25 years.

And that manmade CO2 is a greenhouse gas that really has a very very small contribution to the greenhouse effect

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century

Observations the last 25 years………………………….. +1.01° C / Century

http://i67.tinypic.com/n5htzl.png

The question for people like you is how can you still believe in the IPCC when they got it wrong.

If we on this side (skeptics) where proven so wrong you wouldn't even have the time of day for us, probably just referring back to the observations.

How is it that you still believe in the BS the IPCC is spewing out when its right in front of you in black and white?

The correlation the IPCC have made in their models between CO2 and temperature is WRONG, again by observation!!!!!!

http://i67.tinypic.com/ilm8mw.jpg

Now please tell me why the IPCC showed the medieval warm period and the little ice age in 1990 and then took it out in 2001 replacing it with Mann's  hockey schhtick.

http://i64.tinypic.com/97k045.jpg

Blah blah freekin blah.  Model smozzle.  All noise.

Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, the climate is changing extremely rapidly due to the change in the atmosphere.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

That does this ...

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2015/20150106_global_Tmean_plot.png

What the bark do you mean when you say blah blah blah.

I'm presenting you facts just like you are presenting facts to me......????

I agree the earth is warming but not due to the emissions of manmade CO2.

The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated in more or less a sinusoidal pattern.

Are you trying to say that we (us humans) should some how make the temperature flat line.............??????

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!

That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education.

You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest.

We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change!

You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm.

random wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:58am:

That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm.

I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL.

Now off you go........... :D

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:01am:

random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D

I suggest you post some credible, defendable information to back up your claims about that. 

This should be good ...

random wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:04am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:01am: random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D I suggest you post some credible, defendable information to back up your claims about that.  This should be good ...

Random you come across as someone who would burn witches at the stake or join a nazi party all on hearsay and innuendo.

I've presenting you the facts in black and white and still you believe!!!!????

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century

Observations the last 25 years……………………… +1.01° C / Century

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

From the same article Fyfe uses the term “slowdown” rather than “hiatus” and stresses that it does not in any way undermine global-warming theory. “What gets obfuscated is the goal of uncovering the warming due to persistent greenhouse forcing [by human emissions],” Karl says. “It is simply not possible to gain insight on that underlying trend from short, segmented 10- to 20-year periods.” Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence. http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414 I couldn't agree more. In a dynamic system like the Earth there is always going to be short term divergences. The long term trend however is for warming.

Well done Barnacle

You should be very proud of your analysis and commentary

Congratulations mate.

Keep up the good work in here mate

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:30am:

random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:04am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:01am: random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D I suggest you post some credible, defendable information to back up your claims about that.  This should be good ... Random you come across as someone who would burn witches at the stake or join a nazi party all on hearsay and innuendo. I've presenting you the facts in black and white and still you believe!!!!???? Warming by the end of this century IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century Observations the last 25 years……………………… +1.01° C / Century

Batman, I noticed that you used bold text for some of the content in your post.

well done mate

Congratulations for highlighting and emphasising the "bits" in your posts that you felt were important. It certainly made your post clearer even though I sensed some subtle overtones in your posts that suggests to me that you arent entirely convinced that carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

Batman, I can offer you some comfort and clear some of the doubt you are obviously feeling at the moment concerning CO2 and assure you that Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas - there is no two ways about it mate. Not only that mate, but if you burn a fossil fuel such as gas or coal, one of the major by-products of this combustion process is in fact Carbon Dioxide - amazing coincidence? Some say "Perhaps", but I say "no way Jose"

Well one on cheering yourself up and keeping your chin up. I dont want to see any more tears from you mate. We dont want to plunge back into the olden dark days do we Batman.

Good luck mate and take care

....and well done

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 11:37am:

Batman, I noticed that you used bold text for some of the content in your post. well done mate Congratulations for highlighting and emphasising the "bits" in your posts that you felt were important. It certainly made your post clearer even though I sensed some subtle overtones in your posts that suggests to me that you arent entirely convinced that carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Batman, I can offer you some comfort and clear some of the doubt you are obviously feeling at the moment concerning CO2 and assure you that Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas - there is no two ways about it mate. Not only that mate, but if you burn a fossil fuel such as gas or coal, one of the major by-products of this combustion process is in fact Carbon Dioxide - amazing coincidence? Some say "Perhaps", but I say "no way Jose" Well one on cheering yourself up and keeping your chin up. I dont want to see any more tears from you mate. We dont want to plunge back into the olden dark days do we Batman. Good luck mate and take care ....and well done

You're a lying conniving troglodyte that knows the IPCC computer models are wrong.

Yet you push this agenda, are you on the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) gravy train by any chance......????

Are you being paid to do this........????

You can point out the follies of our government subsidies for the oil and gas industry yet fail to see the oligarchy scam to tax us on the air we breathe by creating a $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market based on the scientific lie that is AGW.

BTW hairy arse I've always said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does contribute to the greenhouse effect here on Earth.

What I'm disputing is that all this warming was caused by mans emissions of CO2.

Which is a LIE that has been proven wrong.

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Which is a LIE that has been proven wrong.

Good to see you back to your jovial and upbeat self Batman - those tears you were shedding over the past 3 or 4 years were starting to upset the good folk of Ozpolitic. fantastic to see that Batman smile again mate - well done and congratulations on that achievement. Well done mate.

Doesnt a LIE that has been proven wrong become the truth?

Congratulations mate

random wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:43am:

Model smozzle.  All noise.

I am glad we agree on that. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:30am:

random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:04am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:01am: random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D I suggest you post some credible, defendable information to back up your claims about that.  This should be good ... Random you come across as someone who would burn witches at the stake or join a nazi party all on hearsay and innuendo. I've presenting you the facts in black and white and still you believe!!!!???? Warming by the end of this century IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century Observations the last 25 years……………………… +1.01° C / Century

Is Ajax saying linearity should rule the universe  ::) ::) ?

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 11:37am: Batman, I noticed that you used bold text for some of the content in your post. well done mate Congratulations for highlighting and emphasising the "bits" in your posts that you felt were important. It certainly made your post clearer even though I sensed some subtle overtones in your posts that suggests to me that you arent entirely convinced that carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Batman, I can offer you some comfort and clear some of the doubt you are obviously feeling at the moment concerning CO2 and assure you that Carbon Dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas - there is no two ways about it mate. Not only that mate, but if you burn a fossil fuel such as gas or coal, one of the major by-products of this combustion process is in fact Carbon Dioxide - amazing coincidence? Some say "Perhaps", but I say "no way Jose" Well one on cheering yourself up and keeping your chin up. I dont want to see any more tears from you mate. We dont want to plunge back into the olden dark days do we Batman. Good luck mate and take care ....and well done You're a lying conniving troglodyte that knows the IPCC computer models are wrong. Yet you push this agenda, are you on the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) gravy train by any chance......???? Are you being paid to do this........???? You can point out the follies of our government subsidies for the oil and gas industry yet fail to see the oligarchy scam to tax us on the air we breathe by creating a $2 trillion dollar carbon derivatives market based on the scientific lie that is AGW. BTW hairy arse I've always said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it does contribute to the greenhouse effect here on Earth. What I'm disputing is that all this warming was caused by mans emissions of CO2. Which is a LIE that has been proven wrong.

What would make a crack smoking bat say this?

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:01am:

random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D

Quantified argument is of no use to a crack smoking bat ?

Oh wait, only sometimes: of course  :D

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:49am:

What the bark do you mean when you say blah blah blah. I'm presenting you facts just like you are presenting facts to me......???? I agree the earth is warming but not due to the emissions of manmade CO2. The Earth's temperature has always fluctuated in more or less a sinusoidal pattern. Are you trying to say that we (us humans) should some how make the temperature flat line.............?????? NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!

....um, where do we begin with this  ::) ::) ::) ::) ?

  :-? Like bugger*************************** m***********************  :-?

lee wrote on Feb 25^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 25th, 2016 at 9:29pm: It is a common tactic of the climate change deniers to argue over definitions and semantics. So your argument is definitions don't matter? What is your definition of Climate Change? That it it is only the anthropogenic component?

..he's not saying they don't matter: he's saying that people like bobby don't even acknowledge the term multi-year ice as nomenclatured terminology.

Thus communication can't occur and the foreign investor gets to rape and pillage mother nature for a  bit longer  ::)

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 10:01am:

random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D

http://crusadingwithkatie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Waiting.jpg

I'm still waiting for some information to back up your claim about MINIMAL.

Please supply some credible sources, ta in advance.

The data from recent years in particular seems to buck that "minimal" assertion.  The Cherry Picking season is almost closed.

random wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:01am: random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D http://crusadingwithkatie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Waiting.jpg I'm still waiting for some information to back up your claim about MINIMAL. Please supply some credible sources, ta in advance.

http://i65.tinypic.com/t7z5h0.jpg

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:59am:

The data from recent years in particular seems to buck that "minimal" assertion.  The Cherry Picking season is almost closed.

Professor are you talking about the cheery picked data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/

http://i67.tinypic.com/2aalogz.jpg

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:09am:

random wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 9:52am: Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:01am: random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D http://crusadingwithkatie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Waiting.jpg I'm still waiting for some information to back up your claim about MINIMAL. Please supply some credible sources, ta in advance. http://i65.tinypic.com/t7z5h0.jpg

;D ;D smoking a crack pipe whilst wearing a batman suit is about as stupid as it gets!

wow, just wow  ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

wow, just wow  ;D ;D

Cerberus you really are a silly hound despite having three brains.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 12:24pm: Which is a LIE that has been proven wrong. Good to see you back to your jovial and upbeat self Batman - those tears you were shedding over the past 3 or 4 years were starting to upset the good folk of Ozpolitic. fantastic to see that Batman smile again mate - well done and congratulations on that achievement. Well done mate. Doesnt a LIE that has been proven wrong become the truth? Congratulations mate

You should be ashamed of yourself, I bet you pollute the minds of your students with the Anthropogenic Global Warming Religion.

When it finally gets laid to rest as a pseudo science, imagine what these students will think about you then.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature.

Ajax wrote on Feb 27^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

No one is disputing that the Earth has been warming, we can all see the data. And that manmade CO2 is a greenhouse gas that really has a very very small contribution to the greenhouse effect

I am quite gobsmacked by these quotes.
It would seem now that we are only arguing about the DEGREE of human induced global warming.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:50pm: CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:38am: No one is disputing that the Earth has been warming, we can all see the data. And that manmade CO2 is a greenhouse gas that really has a very very small contribution to the greenhouse effect I am quite gobsmacked by these quotes. It would seem now that we are only arguing about the DEGREE of human induced global warming.

Is it not enough that people try to control other people.

Now you want to control the natural evolution of this planet by trying to control its temperature.....?????

It aint going to happen, well not yet anyway unless we have a nuclear war....!!!

Watch this and learn something, if you cant be bothered watch it from the 54 minute mark to understand Earth's energy budget.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 10:42am: lee wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:50pm: CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:38am: No one is disputing that the Earth has been warming, we can all see the data. And that manmade CO2 is a greenhouse gas that really has a very very small contribution to the greenhouse effect I am quite gobsmacked by these quotes. It would seem now that we are only arguing about the DEGREE of human induced global warming. Is it not enough that people try to control other people. Now you want to control the natural evolution of this planet by trying to control its temperature.....????? It aint going to happen, well not yet anyway unless we have a nuclear war....!!! Watch this and learn something, if you cant be bothered watch it from the 54 minute mark to understand Earth's energy budget. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0

The same freaking video: again  ;D

Murray Salby is a liar and a cheat.  He was sacked in the USA, now he has been sacked in Australia.  But this is the quality of the posts made by some people on this forum.

The 31-page NSF final report 02/20/09* is far more explicit about the financial maneuvers and deception, with details far beyond these examples:


    p.4 'The Subject's fifteen-year-long pattern of deceptive statements to his University and to NSF disguised his participation in entities and activities that existed for the purpose of maximizing his personal financial compensation and shielding the extent of his compensation from discovery or accountability.'

    p.18 'The most egregious act of misconduct is the deficient and likely fraudulent** preparation of the Subject's time and effort reports for Company 2. However, the Subject's actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies.'

    p.21 'the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281.'

    p.23 'The Subject's focus on his personal financial gain conflicted with accountability and disclosure requirements, both to the University and to NSF. When these conflicts were uncovered during the investigation, the Subject's response was to continue and expand his pattern of deception and obfuscation, and to begin personal attacks on his former colleagues….(fn99) [Redacted] stated in an interview in April 2008 that the Subject blames him for the University and Federal investigation, even though the Subject directed all actions of Company 1 and Company 2, and received the financial benefits of the malfeasance.' From IRS Form 990s, [Redacted] must be Patrick F. Callaghan, Salby's long-time co-author and colleague.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:42am:

I am quite gobsmacked by these quotes. It would seem now that we are only arguing about the DEGREE of human induced global warming.

Congratulations. That was all it ever was.

Now go and hypothesise by how much.

random wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

The 31-page NSF final report 02/20/09* is far more explicit about the financial maneuvers and deception, with details far beyond these examples:

The National Science Foundation? Whose  "mission is to advance the progress of science"? The organisation that won't fund anything that might find against the AGW/CC meme? ;D ;D ;D

random wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 10:01am: random wrote on Feb 27th, 2016 at 9:58am: That's awsome Ajax.  Read up on the laws of thermodynamics.  Seems there are some basics missing in your physics education. You are arguing that the rapid change in the air we breath has no effect on the climate.  Surely you jest. We can pump gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere and ... nothing!!!  No change! You are either seriously under uneducated OR you are lying to us, for some reason.  Mmmmmm. I suggest you do a bit more research and you'll see that even though man's emissions of CO2 do contribute to the greenhouse effect they are at best MINIMAL. Now off you go........... :D http://crusadingwithkatie.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Waiting.jpg I'm still waiting for some information to back up your claim about MINIMAL. Please supply some credible sources, ta in advance.

Ajax, you must be really busy and you missed this question from me.  Please answer soon as I really would like to know where you got that statement as is it counter to everything else I have read.

Ta in advance.

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 10:13am:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 9:59am: The data from recent years in particular seems to buck that "minimal" assertion.  The Cherry Picking season is almost closed. Professor are you talking about the cheery picked data. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/[/url]

Watts Up with that? Scraping the barrel again I see.

random wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

Ajax, you must be really busy and you missed this question from me.  Please answer soon as I really would like to know where you got that statement as is it counter to everything else I have read. Ta in advance.

Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

Watts Up with that? Scraping the barrel again I see.

You really have a hard time reconciling the fact he is an aggregator of scientific papers, don't you?

Just like Skeptical Science, they have a hard time of it too. And Hotwhopper, Desmogblog.

random wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 1:00pm:

Murray Salby is a liar and a cheat.  He was sacked in the USA, now he has been sacked in Australia.  But this is the quality of the posts made by some people on this forum. The 31-page NSF final report 02/20/09* is far more explicit about the financial maneuvers and deception, with details far beyond these examples:     p.4 'The Subject's fifteen-year-long pattern of deceptive statements to his University and to NSF disguised his participation in entities and activities that existed for the purpose of maximizing his personal financial compensation and shielding the extent of his compensation from discovery or accountability.'     p.18 'The most egregious act of misconduct is the deficient and likely fraudulent** preparation of the Subject's time and effort reports for Company 2. However, the Subject's actions over a period of years displays a pattern of deception, a lack of integrity, and a persistent and intentional disregard of NSF and University rules and policies.'     p.21 'the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281.'     p.23 'The Subject's focus on his personal financial gain conflicted with accountability and disclosure requirements, both to the University and to NSF. When these conflicts were uncovered during the investigation, the Subject's response was to continue and expand his pattern of deception and obfuscation, and to begin personal attacks on his former colleagues….(fn99) [Redacted] stated in an interview in April 2008 that the Subject blames him for the University and Federal investigation, even though the Subject directed all actions of Company 1 and Company 2, and received the financial benefits of the malfeasance.' From IRS Form 990s, [Redacted] must be Patrick F. Callaghan, Salby's long-time co-author and colleague.

Only a foolish man would condemn another without first having a look at all the evidence, a foolish man with a simple mind, a witch burner at the stake on hearsay and innuendo.

First of all its not Salby's science theory which his accusers are condemning, what does that tell you random....????

Probably like admiral benson nothing, it goes in one ear and out the other LOL..!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGWAEs_0n7M



Quote:

Salby responds to the attacks on his record Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie  struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond, which he has at length in a PDF here. The figures listed below refer to that PDF, which encompasses 15 years of events. I don’t have the resources (unlike the  National Science Foundation, the NSF) to investigate it all, but wanted to give Murry the right of reply. On closer inspection the NSF report used by people to attack Salby does not appear to be the balanced, impartial analysis I would have expected. Indeed the hyperbolic language based on insubstantial evidence is disturbing to say the least. Because of the long detailed nature of this I cannot draw conclusions, except to say that any scientist who responds to a question about Murry Salby’s work with a reference to his employment is no scientist. Remember the NSF report was supposedly an inhouse private document. It was marked “Confidential”, subject to the Privacy Act, with disclosure outside the NSF prohibited.  In the end, a confidential, low standard, internal document with legalistic sounding words, may have been “leaked” to those in search of a character attack. My summary of his reply First and foremost, there is nothing in any of the NSF claims that questions Murry Salby’s scientific research. This is about paperwork and whether bureaucratic procedures have been properly followed, not about his science. There is another side to the story and a long and complex history regarding Murry Salby’s work at Colorado University (CU). It started way back in 1997 when he noticed funds were going missing from his NSF-funded research group. After requests for their return were ignored, he reported it to the NSF. By 2003 it reached the stage where the NSF launched a criminal investigation into Colorado University for misappropriation of research funds. The investigation stopped when $100,000 was returned to Salby’s group. Salby was unable to find out where half those missing funds had been placed during the time they had been missing. Possibly this did not make him friends at CU. Later after Salby left CU in 2008 to come to Australia, Colorado University withheld his computer files and work. After requests for those were also ignored, he launched a case from Australia, and won access to everything — CU paid legal costs as well. Curiously, soon after Salby launched that case, the NSF revived a dormant scientific investigation against Murry which went on to make some extremely serious claims — claims that Salby completely disputes (see his full letter here). Read the rest here http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/murry-salby-responds-to-the-attacks-on-his-record/

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 10:13am: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 9:59am: The data from recent years in particular seems to buck that "minimal" assertion.  The Cherry Picking season is almost closed. Professor are you talking about the cheery picked data. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/[/url] Watts Up with that? Scraping the barrel again I see.

Whats Up With That and Jonova two excellent sites that present facts and truth rather than excuses for a pseudo science that just cant get any of its predictions right.

In the old days the scientist would have thrown the baby out with the bath water and started again, that is if the theory and accompanying math didn't match the observations.

These days they keep feeding you guys the same old garbage that has been proven wrong by 25 years of observations.

You guys just lap it up like dogs eating poo.

And you call yourselves educated more like trained monkeys that cant think for themselves.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

random wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 1:48pm: Ajax, you must be really busy and you missed this question from me.  Please answer soon as I really would like to know where you got that statement as is it counter to everything else I have read. Ta in advance. Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again.

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUo8x2M2qBc

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%
http://i41.tinypic.com/2w6yrlg.jpg

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature?

(1).....On a small time scale (NO), (11,000 years)

Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C

Graph-1
http://i45.tinypic.com/snic0j.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

(2).....On a medium time scale YES???, (450,000 years)

(NO) , It appears so because of the scale we are zoomed out at.

WARNING ! This is the scale that most global warming sites use to scare the unsuspecting.

Over the past few hundred thousand years of ice core data, a “medium” time scale in this sense, CO2 superficially appears to change in step with temperature if a graph is so zoomed out as to not show sub-millennial time
scales well

Graph-2
http://i49.tinypic.com/s5k0nn.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

A record of temperature and atmospheric CO2 over the past 400,000 years is preserved in the Vostok Ice Core and is shown in the figure on the right.

It can be seen that there have been a series of large fluctuations in temperature (the Ice Ages), accompanied by large changes in atmospheric CO2.

It is thought that these large temperature fluctuations are triggered by Milankovitch cycles - variations in the earth's orbit that change the amount of energy from the sun that reaches us.

However, on their own, these cycles are not enough to explain the changes in temperature.

The full explanation seems to be that the small change in temperature caused by the changing orbit are amplified by natural processes on earth. These cause CO2 to be released from the oceans and the biosphere, causing an increased greenhouse effect.

This is described more fully in this article from the New Scientist (see also Shackleton 2000). For more details on the timing of changes in CO2 and temperature, click on the figure.

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#100,000years

(3).....On a long time scale (NO) , (millions of years)

Graph-3
http://i45.tinypic.com/vf8b5l.jpg

[url]http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf[/urll]

(4).....Lately
http://i42.tinypic.com/10wnz8z.jpg http://i67.tinypic.com/2rr441c.jpg

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models  projected warming……… +2.78° C / Century

Observations the last 25 years………………………….. +1.01° C / Century

http://i66.tinypic.com/hrwj9c.png

IPCC hide the truth with pseudo science.

http://i63.tinypic.com/10p2ety.jpg

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:03pm:

IPCC hide the truth with pseudo science. http://i63.tinypic.com/10p2ety.jpg

well done on showing these graphs batman - congratulations.

Very impressive post you crafted.

I am sure you have finally nailed the coffin of climate scientists around the world with this post

excellent stuff - well done

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:03pm: IPCC hide the truth with pseudo science. http://i63.tinypic.com/10p2ety.jpg well done on showing these graphs batman - congratulations. Very impressive post you crafted. I am sure you have finally nailed the coffin of climate scientists around the world with this post excellent stuff - well done

That's all you got......!!!!?????

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:03pm:

Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again.

I predicted it first.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:27pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:03pm: Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again. I predicted it first.

When you can refute all the above call me.....!!!!

Next we'll look at the sea levels.....!!!

Or will be the glaciers before they disappear in 2035...LMFAO...!!!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUo8x2M2qBc

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:27pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:03pm: Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again. I predicted it first.

Looks like you know this idiot well.

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:27pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:03pm: Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again. I predicted it first. When you can refute all the above call me.....!!!! Next we'll look at the sea levels.....!!! Or will be the glaciers before they disappear in 2035...LMFAO...!!!!

http://www.dayztv.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/dayz-sir-you-got-owned.jpg

BTW - Here is the link to the paper and its authors.

'Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown

    John C. Fyfe,      Gerald A. Meehl,      Matthew H. England,      Michael E. Mann,      Benjamin D. Santer,      Gregory M. Flato,      Ed Hawkins,      Nathan P. Gillett,      Shang-Ping Xie,      Yu Kosaka      & Neil C. Swart'

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/pdf/nclimate2938.pdf

I'm sure most will know the highlighted names.

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 2:33pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:01pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 10:13am: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 9:59am: The data from recent years in particular seems to buck that "minimal" assertion.  The Cherry Picking season is almost closed. Professor are you talking about the cheery picked data. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/28/ncdcnceis-karl-and-peterson-refuse-congressional-subpoena-on-flawed-pausebuster-paper/[/url] Watts Up with that? Scraping the barrel again I see. Whats Up With That and Jonova two excellent sites that present facts and truth rather than excuses for a pseudo science that just cant get any of its predictions right. In the old days the scientist would have thrown the baby out with the bath water and started again, that is if the theory and accompanying math didn't match the observations. These days they keep feeding you guys the same old garbage that has been proven wrong by 25 years of observations. You guys just lap it up like dogs eating poo. And you call yourselves educated more like trained monkeys that cant think for themselves.

You do realise long term decreasing rainfall trends are a reality!

lee wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 11:13am:

BTW - Here is the link to the paper and its authors. 'Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown     John C. Fyfe,      Gerald A. Meehl,      Matthew H. England,      Michael E. Mann,      Benjamin D. Santer,      Gregory M. Flato,      Ed Hawkins,      Nathan P. Gillett,      Shang-Ping Xie,      Yu Kosaka      & Neil C. Swart' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/pdf/nclimate2938.pdf I'm sure most will know the highlighted names.

Sorry I'm not gunna buy the paper.  How about you post it here, you have obviously read it, hand it over ... ahhhhh, maybe you haven't read it!

random wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 1:43pm:

lee wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 11:13am: BTW - Here is the link to the paper and its authors. 'Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown     John C. Fyfe,      Gerald A. Meehl,      Matthew H. England,      Michael E. Mann,      Benjamin D. Santer,      Gregory M. Flato,      Ed Hawkins,      Nathan P. Gillett,      Shang-Ping Xie,      Yu Kosaka      & Neil C. Swart' http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/pdf/nclimate2938.pdf I'm sure most will know the highlighted names. Sorry I'm not gunna buy the paper.  How about you post it here, you have obviously read it, hand it over ... ahhhhh, maybe you haven't read it!

random takes no prisoners : nice  :D :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcrH7kjY86M

random wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 1:43pm:

Sorry I'm not gunna buy the paper.  How about you post it here, you have obviously read it, hand it over ... ahhhhh, maybe you haven't read it!

The summary from Tollefson was the first story. However try this -

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=w39xUlyFTGhLyIPzl2TjtdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9ble9FcNagQ1ss5L1V0KiWd-xzbFQjp8p3e-nUsgU7jNuUykRRWZpgMltUfROWf3xSKeGSSY7TvMiWdaeBCmNzlbQKCodQ3ivWje8eZYAs8Dr1uu8L-i3CHt8f_jYiil5eUIdC5Q1dUYtR5ruZh5YPv9Rt5T0PGmyP-JcH656J17M8%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

You don't trust Nature? For shame.

random wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 1:43pm:

Sorry I'm not gunna buy the paper.  How about you post it here, you have obviously read it, hand it over ... ahhhhh, maybe you haven't read it!

He never does.

Ajax wrote on Feb 28^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 3:27pm: John_Taverner wrote on Feb 28th, 2016 at 2:03pm: Careful. He'll have a hissy fit and start cutting and pasting the same old recycled nonsense that has been discredited time and time again. I predicted it first. When you can refute all the above call me.....!!!!

I already did once before. Your reaction was to cut and paste it again.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

He never does.

The headline piece is what Tollefson wrote, it wasn't from the abstract. I never claimed it was the paper written by Fyfe et al.

Did Tollefson, who writes for Nature, correctly state what was written in the paper?

I have now given you the paper; does it say what it is purported to have said?

If not please tell us why Tollefson, and by implication Nature, lied.

lee wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 5:15pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 5:00pm: He never does. The headline piece is what Tollefson wrote, it wasn't from the abstract. I never claimed it was the paper written by Fyfe et al. Did Tollefson, who writes for Nature, correctly state what was written in the paper? I have now given you the paper; does it say what it is purported to have said? If not please tell us why Tollefson, and by implication Nature, lied.

^{.. or else you will all be fired cos daddykins gave me the power to hire and fire all internet contributors such is the power of the business acumen club of Australia!! (..presumably  :o :o)  ::) ::) ::)}

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

or else you will all be fired cos daddykins gave me the power to hire and fire all internet contributors such is the power of the business acumen club of Australia!! (..presumably

I know why you write so small. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 5:36pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 5:22pm: or else you will all be fired cos daddykins gave me the power to hire and fire all internet contributors such is the power of the business acumen club of Australia!! (..presumably I know why you write so small. ;)

oh noes: lee is about to come through the computer screen with a wrench of some kind and do nasty things  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

:D :D :D :D

I better stop posting  :D :D :D :D :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

oh noes: lee is about to come through the computer screen with a wrench of some kind and do nasty things

Nope. You are doing "nasty" things to yourself.i

lee wrote on Feb 29^th, 2016 at 6:09pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 29th, 2016 at 6:02pm: oh noes: lee is about to come through the computer screen with a wrench of some kind and do nasty things Nope. You are doing "nasty" things to yourself. (

You are doing nasty things to your own family  :'( :'( :'( :'

New Questions on the "hiatus".

'To investigate why the global warming trend varies from decade to decade, scientists from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC, UK) will work alongside those from nine other research organisations as part of a major new multidisciplinary research project. Over the last decade a slowdown, or hiatus, has been observed in the global warming of the earth’s surface. Although it is important to note that heat is still accumulating in other parts of the climate system, such as the deep ocean.'

http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus


This follows on from a new satellite adjustment from Carl Mears of RSS. The main assumption being that tropical Relative Humidity (RH) is near-constant at 0.8.

'Over the tropical oceans, atmospheric temperature and total column water vapor (TCWV) are tightly constrained assuming near-constant relative humidity and the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship (Mears et al. 2007; Wentz and Schabel 2000).

https://sci-hub.io/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1

'The  seasonal  differences  in  RH  agree very  well  (both  sign  and  magnitude)  with  the  GCM  (Del Genio et al. 1994):  15% to 20% in the midtroposphere and 0%  to  10%  in  the  low  and  upper  troposphere,  and  have  the same  sign  as  those  from  the  Stratosphere  Aerosol  and  Gas Experiment  (SAGE-II)  but  larger  magnitudes  (Rind  et  al.1991; Del Genio et al. 1994).'

https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf08/extended_abs/wang_j.pdf

So how near-constant is Relative Humidity?

Where has the warming been found in the deep ocean? How deep is deep?

The earth's average surface temperature momentarily climbed above the 2 degC threshold just the other week.

The COP21 agreement signed in Paris on December 2015 aims to limit global warming to under 2 degC (above pre industrial levels).

The COP21 agreement comes into effect in 2020.

Lots of luck with the 2 degC target limit.

lee will be happy though - we all know his attitude to the potential deep frying of the world's future generations of children and innocent.

lee needs to protect the banks and corporations doesn't he. That's all that matter. Corporate profit for today.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

The COP21 agreement comes into effect in 2020.

The COP21 Agreement couldn't even decide what is an industrialised country and what isn't. The agreement was and is a waste of trees.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 4:19pm:

The earth's average surface temperature momentarily climbed above the 2 degC threshold just the other week. The COP21 agreement signed in Paris on December 2015 aims to limit global warming to under 2 degC (above pre industrial levels). The COP21 agreement comes into effect in 2020. Lots of luck with the 2 degC target limit. lee will be happy though - we all know his attitude to the potential deep frying of the world's future generations of children and innocent. lee needs to protect the banks and corporations doesn't he. That's all that matter. Corporate profit for today.

...are we sure we aren't talking to agent lee from the matrix? :D :D

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 4:19pm: The COP21 agreement comes into effect in 2020. The COP21 Agreement couldn't even decide what is an industrialised country and what isn't. The agreement was and is a waste of trees.

what about the 12 billion dollars you and your fellow tax payers in Australia use to prop up the fossil fuel and mining sectors? Sectors which are 83% foreign owned by multinational corporations and only employ about 3% of the Total Australian workforce. Great subsidy bargain for the tax payer isn't it lee?

why does your beloved foreign owned fossil fuel scam require socialistic welfare and protection to survive lee? Does it pay for the externalities it creates in society and the environment?

you appear to be very silent of these matters lee.

You're a deranged political fascist when it suits you and a Stalinist Marxist centralist control freak when things dont suit you lee.

And we all know what sort of person this neurosis encompasses dont we folks.

Well done lee - exposed again in public for what you are

You need to get to the nearest KFC for a fill up mate.

:D ;D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

what about the 12 billion dollars you and your fellow tax payers in Australia use to prop up the fossil fuel and mining sectors?

You mean legitimate tax deductions? I showed once before the modelling which showed the IMF said any tax deductions were subsidies. ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 6:06pm: what about the 12 billion dollars you and your fellow tax payers in Australia use to prop up the fossil fuel and mining sectors? You mean legitimate tax deductions? I showed once before the modelling which showed the IMF said any tax deductions were subsidies. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Te be a semantic debate or not to be a semantic debate: that is the question  ::)!!