Slashdot Mirror

Sea level measurements have been consistently over estimated for years.

We've got very good measurements of sea level. It's rising.

Plus people can move. I don't see way that's a problem.

Are you rich or just an asshole? It's hard to move when all of your equity is in a house nobody will buy because it's going to be below sea level. It's hard to move when most of the country you live in will be underwater. So as long as you'll be fine it's OK?

Just like last year was the worst year for hurricanes ever.

He said storms, not hurricanes. Hurricane formation relies on having very still air and water in the tropics. A very small breeze can screw that up. It's better to use the number of named storms as an indicator. Even that won't rise monotonically any more than the temperature will. But last year had 19 named storms in the Atlantic, which is nearly twice the 1966-2009 average (11). It also had 12 hurricanes which is twice the average for that period (6). It also had 5 major hurricanes which is more than twice the average (2). By any measure 2010 had a lot of tropical activity in the Atlantic.

Sea level measurements have been consistently over estimated for years.

We've got very good measurements of sea level. It's rising.

Plus people can move. I don't see way that's a problem.

Are you rich or just an asshole? It's hard to move when all of your equity is in a house nobody will buy because it's going to be below sea level. It's hard to move when most of the country you live in will be underwater. So as long as you'll be fine it's OK?

Just like last year was the worst year for hurricanes ever.

He said storms, not hurricanes. Hurricane formation relies on having very still air and water in the tropics. A very small breeze can screw that up. It's better to use the number of named storms as an indicator. Even that won't rise monotonically any more than the temperature will. But last year had 19 named storms in the Atlantic, which is nearly twice the 1966-2009 average (11). It also had 12 hurricanes which is twice the average for that period (6). It also had 5 major hurricanes which is more than twice the average (2). By any measure 2010 had a lot of tropical activity in the Atlantic.

"Global Warming" as an urgent crisis caused by human activity is a scam. Average temperatures haven't gone up in a decade and the climate models that the Global Warming alarmists are pointing to can't even accurately predict current conditions from historical data.

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Satellites provide unmistakable evidence that the Earth has been warming for the past 30 years. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

The primary driving factors of world wide climate (absent widespread volcanic activity, which is not cyclic and not predictable) are insolation and the oceans, not atmospheric CO2 levels.

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The oceans are warming because of atmospheric CO2 and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.

Feel free to lie to yourself, but please don't lie to us.

"Global Warming" as an urgent crisis caused by human activity is a scam. Average temperatures haven't gone up in a decade and the climate models that the Global Warming alarmists are pointing to can't even accurately predict current conditions from historical data.

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Satellites provide unmistakable evidence that the Earth has been warming for the past 30 years. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

The primary driving factors of world wide climate (absent widespread volcanic activity, which is not cyclic and not predictable) are insolation and the oceans, not atmospheric CO2 levels.

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The oceans are warming because of atmospheric CO2 and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.

Feel free to lie to yourself, but please don't lie to us.

"Global Warming" as an urgent crisis caused by human activity is a scam. Average temperatures haven't gone up in a decade and the climate models that the Global Warming alarmists are pointing to can't even accurately predict current conditions from historical data.

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Satellites provide unmistakable evidence that the Earth has been warming for the past 30 years. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

The primary driving factors of world wide climate (absent widespread volcanic activity, which is not cyclic and not predictable) are insolation and the oceans, not atmospheric CO2 levels.

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The oceans are warming because of atmospheric CO2 and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.

Feel free to lie to yourself, but please don't lie to us.

"Global Warming" as an urgent crisis caused by human activity is a scam. Average temperatures haven't gone up in a decade and the climate models that the Global Warming alarmists are pointing to can't even accurately predict current conditions from historical data.

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Satellites provide unmistakable evidence that the Earth has been warming for the past 30 years. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

The primary driving factors of world wide climate (absent widespread volcanic activity, which is not cyclic and not predictable) are insolation and the oceans, not atmospheric CO2 levels.

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The oceans are warming because of atmospheric CO2 and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.

Feel free to lie to yourself, but please don't lie to us.

"Global Warming" as an urgent crisis caused by human activity is a scam. Average temperatures haven't gone up in a decade and the climate models that the Global Warming alarmists are pointing to can't even accurately predict current conditions from historical data.

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005. Satellites provide unmistakable evidence that the Earth has been warming for the past 30 years. Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.

The primary driving factors of world wide climate (absent widespread volcanic activity, which is not cyclic and not predictable) are insolation and the oceans, not atmospheric CO2 levels.

In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. The oceans are warming because of atmospheric CO2 and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain.

Feel free to lie to yourself, but please don't lie to us.

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

1. Man is causing global warming.

Yes. Exactly.

2. We can't actually prove it, but correlation == causation.

No. Correlation != causation, but the theoretical basis of the greenhouse effect (infrared opacity of CO2 trapping heat) has been known for more than a century. Correlation+theoretical mechanism == probable causation.

3. Okay, correlation != causation, but we have a consensus

Yes, we certainly do.

4. True, Earth as the center of the universe was once a consensus too, but we're right this time!

Yes, people once thought that the earth was the center of the universe. That conclusion was not reached scientifically, It was the scientific process that resulted in a scientific consensus that the earth was not at the center of the universe. Much like the scientific process has resulted in a scientific consensus of the reality of anthropogenic global warming. No climate scientist is claiming 100% certainty. There's a 1 or 2% chance that we're wrong.

Suppose you went to your doctor and he said there's a mass on your liver, and tests show there's a 98% chance it's cancerous. To remove it you would need surgery, and with liver surgery there's a 1or 2% chance you will die on the table. Would you have the surgery? Or would you opt out because of the 0.04% chance you will die for a non-cancerous growth.

5. Rapture

There will be no Rapture to save us.

1. Man is causing global warming.

Yes. Exactly.

2. We can't actually prove it, but correlation == causation.

No. Correlation != causation, but the theoretical basis of the greenhouse effect (infrared opacity of CO2 trapping heat) has been known for more than a century. Correlation+theoretical mechanism == probable causation.

3. Okay, correlation != causation, but we have a consensus

Yes, we certainly do.

4. True, Earth as the center of the universe was once a consensus too, but we're right this time!

Yes, people once thought that the earth was the center of the universe. That conclusion was not reached scientifically, It was the scientific process that resulted in a scientific consensus that the earth was not at the center of the universe. Much like the scientific process has resulted in a scientific consensus of the reality of anthropogenic global warming. No climate scientist is claiming 100% certainty. There's a 1 or 2% chance that we're wrong.

Suppose you went to your doctor and he said there's a mass on your liver, and tests show there's a 98% chance it's cancerous. To remove it you would need surgery, and with liver surgery there's a 1or 2% chance you will die on the table. Would you have the surgery? Or would you opt out because of the 0.04% chance you will die for a non-cancerous growth.

5. Rapture

There will be no Rapture to save us.

Global temperatures will continue to rise as they have for the last 5 decades.
Global sea levels will continue to rise.
Worldwide mass of sea ice an land ice will continue to decrease

We've been predicting these things for decades, and when they come true, you just ignore us and pick tiny exceptions to global rules and claim it's all wrong. Your main reason for disbelief is that you don't want to believe.

I've posted it before. I'll post it again. Responses to 163 bogus arguments made by global warming deniers.

Climate may change but right now we're driving the climate, not the sun. While it has been warmer, it hasn't been warmer for a very long time. Usually the climate changes slower than the pace we're driving it at, warming too fast will lead to problems for a planet full of people, crop yields are rising slower than they should be because of climate change, which means food prices are going up not just because of the rising price of oil, but also because that oil is producing less food than it should.

Climate may change but right now we're driving the climate, not the sun. While it has been warmer, it hasn't been warmer for a very long time. Usually the climate changes slower than the pace we're driving it at, warming too fast will lead to problems for a planet full of people, crop yields are rising slower than they should be because of climate change, which means food prices are going up not just because of the rising price of oil, but also because that oil is producing less food than it should.

It's not the sun:

In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions. In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount.

We don't have to wait for the CLOUD experiment to see that correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature is poor after 1970:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change

"it forecasts that 2010 will probably end up being the hottest year since records began in 1850, surpassing the previous high recorded in 1998."

"Each of the last ten years features in the top 11 warmest years recorded in all datasets."

Saw this too, 1934 hottest year on record as something skeptics point too. Except this is only in the US, not global temps.

Here 80s hottest, then 90s, then 00's

any other questions? :)

Actually there IS a strong correlation between the variability of the Sun and global temperatures. I.E. When the sun is hotter the Earth is warmer and when the Sun is cooler the Earth is cooler. Yet. this data is completely ignored by climate scientists.

Just because you're not paying attention doesn't mean the climate scientists haven't looked at that data. In fact, they have, and have discounted it.

What you're saying is true in terms of the climate lag, but your understanding of what it means is miles off. The fact that warming cycles due to orbital changes are followed by changes in atmospheric CO2 does not invalidate or in any way call into question the fact that CO2 causes additional atmospheric warming, nor that anthropogenic emissions have caused substantial warming.

A good idea in the future would be to take anything you hear about climate change and search the Skeptical Science page for it. Read this for more information:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

The data have always showed warming due to burning fossil fuels, ever since Arrhenius predicted it over 100 years ago. The impending ice age approaching was hypothesized by researchers doing exactly what you're doing -- instead of looking at the global temperature trend looking at small geographical areas. Clearly global temperatures are rising. There isn't a "scare campaign" that I can see, just predictions based on a scientific hypothesis, and observations that match those predictions. The problem with rising sea levels is that hundreds of millions of people will have to relocate, abandoning trillions of dollars of infrastructure. Solar power can be used with energy storage systems. Try reading some research on the areas you're discussing instead of spreading misinformation like your post does.

Are brought to you by the coal and oil industry. Read about climate at http://www.skepticalscience.com/

That's because they don't pay their due externalities.

I am not sure why, assuming a long term plan, renewables are automatically assumed to be incapable of meeting baseload.

Study on renewables as baseload in North Carolina
Brief paper on baseload and renewables

Giving the time it takes to approve and build a nuke plant, surely in that same time we could at least make some big inroads into upgrading the power grid and start putting additional infrastructure in place for power storage.

I doubt batteries are the answer. However, I am not sure why renewables are automatically assumed to be incapable of meeting baseload.

Study on renewables as baseload in North Carolina
Brief paper on baseload and renewables
research paper on renewable baseload in Australia
Short paper from university of new south wales

I just wish our country could pick a direction and start moving toward it (even nuclear). The country changing its mind every 4-8 years isn't very conducive to upgrading the power grid to be 'smarter', store power (pumped storage, etc...), transfer more efficiently at longer distances, etc.. when many of these projects could take 20+ years.

I am not sure why, considering a 50 year plan, renewables are automatically assumed to be incapable of meeting baseload.
Study on renewables as baseload in North Carolina
Brief paper on baseload and renewables

Surely 50 years is enough time to upgrade the power grid and start putting additional infrastructure in place for power storage.

Solar costs 400% more than coal and nuclear. How is that economically viable? You think the average home can afford a $400/month electric bill?

You're misinformed. New commercial solar projects now deliver electricity at 14 cents per kilowatt-hour (page 6), whereas new nuclear plants are projected to cost 16 cents per kilowatt-hour (assuming they get constructed on time and under budget, ha ha) (page 8).

Of course, nuclear power from existing nuclear plants is cheaper, because much of the costs of building that infrastructure have largely already been paid for over the past few decades. So if you live near an existing nuclear reactor, bully for you, you can enjoy the fruits of that investment for as long as the reactor stays operational. On the other hand, many of those reactors are nearing the end of their service life, so it's iffy how long that option will stick around.

Power from coal seems cheaper, but only if you don't factor in the externalized costs (air pollution, climate change, mountaintop removal damage, etc). Whether that matters you personally depends on where you live, but someone will have to pay those costs sooner or later, so they can't just be ignored. Trying to evaluate the external costs is non-trivial, but a 2011 study suggests that the true cost of coal is somewhere between 9 and 27 cents per kilowatt-hour, with a median cost of 18 cents per kilowatt-hour. So in the big picture, coal isn't cheaper either.

For proof of the lie that is global warming go back to the 70's for predictions of global cooling

"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close... At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies... The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming." [source]

or go back to the 90's and read the incorrect predictions for today

That's pretty vague. Not sure exactly how to respond to that, since you haven't listed a particular prediction, so I'll just take a shot in the dark and point to this: "In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends using 3 different human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios identified as A, B, and C... the actual increase in global surface temperatures has been less than Scenario B, which is the closest to reality... the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity, and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC." [source]

or realize that they changed the name to climate change because that can mean anything.

Horsecrap. "Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature... 'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature... a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'... Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'." [source]

Global warming is an anti-science movement itself but just like the communists practiced you accuse your enemy of doing what you are doing first.

Ah yes, when in doubt, just link us to the dreaded communists. Brilliant.

For proof of the lie that is global warming go back to the 70's for predictions of global cooling

"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close... At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies... The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming." [source]

or go back to the 90's and read the incorrect predictions for today

That's pretty vague. Not sure exactly how to respond to that, since you haven't listed a particular prediction, so I'll just take a shot in the dark and point to this: "In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends using 3 different human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios identified as A, B, and C... the actual increase in global surface temperatures has been less than Scenario B, which is the closest to reality... the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity, and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC." [source]

or realize that they changed the name to climate change because that can mean anything.

Horsecrap. "Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature... 'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature... a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'... Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'." [source]

Global warming is an anti-science movement itself but just like the communists practiced you accuse your enemy of doing what you are doing first.

Ah yes, when in doubt, just link us to the dreaded communists. Brilliant.

For proof of the lie that is global warming go back to the 70's for predictions of global cooling

"In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close... At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies... The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming." [source]

or go back to the 90's and read the incorrect predictions for today

That's pretty vague. Not sure exactly how to respond to that, since you haven't listed a particular prediction, so I'll just take a shot in the dark and point to this: "In 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends using 3 different human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios identified as A, B, and C... the actual increase in global surface temperatures has been less than Scenario B, which is the closest to reality... the main reason Hansen's 1988 warming projections were too high is that he used a climate model with a high climate sensitivity, and his results are actually evidence that the true climate sensitivity parameter is within the range accepted by the IPCC." [source]

or realize that they changed the name to climate change because that can mean anything.

Horsecrap. "Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature... 'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature... a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change'... Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'." [source]

Global warming is an anti-science movement itself but just like the communists practiced you accuse your enemy of doing what you are doing first.

Ah yes, when in doubt, just link us to the dreaded communists. Brilliant.

Maybe because he was totally wrong?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

The advanced-level page has a section on Svensmark's GCR warming theory specifically:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

Antarctic sea ice has increased for some interesting reasons but the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing mass.

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

A lot of misleading statements here. Unfortunately, there are some very wealthy interests that stand to lose from efforts to control CO2, and spend a lot of money spreading misinformation. Scientists end up having to play "whack-a-mole," constantly refuting well-known falsehoods

Articles on his blog (which sometimes reads more like a scientific journal) show that rural stations often show no warming at all - at least, until they have been appropriately "adjusted" (using methods that are generally not released).

False. Analysis of stations that (according to Watts) were found to be well sited and not subject to urban heat island effects show the same increasing temperature trend, indicating that correction for urban heat island effects (by methods which have been published) cannot account for the warming trend. Independent analysis has multiply replicated these results. Moreover, satellite measurements, which are not subject to this bias, show the same trend.

Large parts of the arctic and antarctic are presumed to be warming, even though there are no weather stations within hundreds or thousands of miles.

False. Arctic warming is not merely a "presumption;" it is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including measurements of loss of arctic ice and satellite data.. And the antarctic, far from being "presumed" to be warming, is predicted from climate models to be relatively slow to respond to global warming trends, and the best way to estimate precisely how temperatures are changing in various regions of Antarctica, based upon satellite as well as weather station data, is a matter of active ongoing debate in the scientific literature.

Articles on his blog also show that (a) over decades, there is a warming/cooling cycle that very closely follows solar cycle

However the scientific evidence shows clearly that the current warming is not due to the "solar cycle."

that the overall warming trend of the past 200 years predates any significant human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere

There are multiple factors impacting global temperatures over the past 200 years, of which CO2 is only one, so one cannot naively simply ask "which came first?" Correct accounting must take into account all factors, including changes in solar irradiance, human particulate pollution, volcanic eruptions, and human CO2 pollution.When all of these are taken into account, CO2 is found to be the cause of the modern warming trend.

the planet has in the past been warmer than today - in that sense, the recent warming is not "unprecedented", and finally (d) millions of years ago CO2 levels were much, much higher than today, so a higher CO2 level is also not unprecedented.

This is entirely a strawman, as no scientist has ever claimed that modern warming or high CO2 is unprecedented in the history of the planet--what is without precedent is the enormous numbers of people living in areas that will be massively impacted by changes in sea level, or huge numbers of people being dependent upon reliable an

Except that the clear, objective data show the temperature rise LEADING the CO2 level increases.

It is an elementary error to expect CO2 to necessarily lead temperature increases, as there is a mutual positive feedback between temperature and atmospheric CO2, and there are also other factors influencing temperature. Correct attribution of changes in global temperature requires accounting of all factors impacting temperature, including solar radiation, volcanic eruptions, and human particulate pollution as well as CO2 pollution. When this accounting is done, the data show that the modern rise in CO2 is responsible for most of the modern temperature increase. Citations may be found here

I disagree. They ignore that there is an extremely strong and longstanding correlation between the state of the sun and the earth's temperature.

Nobody's ignoring that correlation. It, like everything else, is being considered as well, and has been largely refuted.

An introduction to why that theory doesn't work can be found here. It's not "the absolute final say" on the subject or anything, but the point is that ideas such as this aren't being "ignored".

Wow, you wrote all that and yet managed to miss the fact that for the last thirty years solar activity levels have been going down, while temperature has been going up?

Seriously, just look at this graph.

That's actually not true. Actual events have fallen in at the high end of the predictions made by climate models 20 years ago, because little action has been taken in all that time to reduce the effects of global warming. You might like to read the intermediate version of that page which goes into more detail about model accuracy.

Hmm I like this better.

Temperature pattern

Nasa says Florida didn't get hotter, it got colder. Also Russia got hotter, but not as much as indicated. The effect is much more subdued on the 10 year map Nasa gives.

Amusingly, while everything in the world is trapped in a furnace, the global mean has moved about half a degree. I usually hear 3-4 degrees in the past decade quoted.

If you would like to learn more about the Medieval Warm Period, I suggest you read up on it.

Actually, the other planets are not warming, the sun is at recent minimum output (for the last 13 years, during which we have experienced unprecedented temperatures).

Wow, you're really working the "we don't know" angle hard, do you ever stop to consider that maybe it's you who doesn't know, and the experts might know what they're talking about?
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling.

Just a further note on the cooling vs warming thing, some scientists figured out that the earth should be cooling and that an ice age was coming in the next 10,000 years in the 1970s. Some reporters got excited and declared an ice age was imminent after all, tomorrow is in the next 10,000 years, right? But the evidence rapidly became clear that the earth was not cooling like it was supposed to be. That's why you don't hear about global cooling anymore, the scientists behind those papers recognized that the evidence didn't support their predictions, mostly because they didn't account for anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gasses.

Wow, you're really working the "we don't know" angle hard, do you ever stop to consider that maybe it's you who doesn't know, and the experts might know what they're talking about?
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling.

Just a further note on the cooling vs warming thing, some scientists figured out that the earth should be cooling and that an ice age was coming in the next 10,000 years in the 1970s. Some reporters got excited and declared an ice age was imminent after all, tomorrow is in the next 10,000 years, right? But the evidence rapidly became clear that the earth was not cooling like it was supposed to be. That's why you don't hear about global cooling anymore, the scientists behind those papers recognized that the evidence didn't support their predictions, mostly because they didn't account for anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gasses.

Wow, you're really working the "we don't know" angle hard, do you ever stop to consider that maybe it's you who doesn't know, and the experts might know what they're talking about?
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling.

Just a further note on the cooling vs warming thing, some scientists figured out that the earth should be cooling and that an ice age was coming in the next 10,000 years in the 1970s. Some reporters got excited and declared an ice age was imminent after all, tomorrow is in the next 10,000 years, right? But the evidence rapidly became clear that the earth was not cooling like it was supposed to be. That's why you don't hear about global cooling anymore, the scientists behind those papers recognized that the evidence didn't support their predictions, mostly because they didn't account for anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gasses.

Wow, you're really working the "we don't know" angle hard, do you ever stop to consider that maybe it's you who doesn't know, and the experts might know what they're talking about?
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.
The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not cooling.

Just a further note on the cooling vs warming thing, some scientists figured out that the earth should be cooling and that an ice age was coming in the next 10,000 years in the 1970s. Some reporters got excited and declared an ice age was imminent after all, tomorrow is in the next 10,000 years, right? But the evidence rapidly became clear that the earth was not cooling like it was supposed to be. That's why you don't hear about global cooling anymore, the scientists behind those papers recognized that the evidence didn't support their predictions, mostly because they didn't account for anthropogenic releases of greenhouse gasses.

Whack-a-mole:

Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Mars and Venus are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.

I'm afraid much of the rest of your post is incomprehensible, but those links should provide enough reading material for your education.

Whack-a-mole:

Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Mars and Venus are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.

I'm afraid much of the rest of your post is incomprehensible, but those links should provide enough reading material for your education.

Whack-a-mole:

Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Mars and Venus are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.

I'm afraid much of the rest of your post is incomprehensible, but those links should provide enough reading material for your education.

Whack-a-mole:

Globally averaged temperature now is higher than global temperature in medieval times.
Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.
Mars and Venus are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly.

I'm afraid much of the rest of your post is incomprehensible, but those links should provide enough reading material for your education.