Slashdot Mirror

There are also reports that God created Earth + two people less than 7000 years ago.
If you really believe what you're claiming, you've been had big time. Here's the gist on Mars: http://www.skepticalscience.co... , and on the solar influence: http://www.skepticalscience.co... - solar activity has been going down, while temperature on Earth (mainly in the oceans for now, check the first image here: http://www.skepticalscience.co...) has been rising dramatically.

There are also reports that God created Earth + two people less than 7000 years ago.
If you really believe what you're claiming, you've been had big time. Here's the gist on Mars: http://www.skepticalscience.co... , and on the solar influence: http://www.skepticalscience.co... - solar activity has been going down, while temperature on Earth (mainly in the oceans for now, check the first image here: http://www.skepticalscience.co...) has been rising dramatically.

There are a few reports that suggest that the ice caps on Mars are slowly receding too, so it may be in part due to changing solar activity.

If you're curious about possible solar activity, wouldn't it be smarter to look directly at the sun ?

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

It's been suggested that we could ALREADY be in an ice age if it weren't for the extra CO2.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The real argument is legislative - Given that developing nations will overshadow developed nations in CO2 emissions, legislation will do nothing except harm the World economy.

They succeeded, but you have already made your mind up and simply will not accept them. You shift your goalposts or claim to find some flaw which the peer-review process did not, and sit back and exultantly throw your arms up in the air proclaiming "see! see! I'm still right!" even when it's plainly obvious to anyone who did remotely well in science classes at school that you are not only wrong, but not interested in learning. It's quite easy to illustrate this - you spend a large amount of time on Slashdot complaining about how AGW isn't real and how the models haven't predicted anything, when there is lots of evidence a mere click or two away to quench any thirst for knowledge you might have.

I'm sure you've found this link but found some errors with it that the rest of the scientific community magically didn't notice. It will show that your faux outrage against the scientific method is based on a toxic mix of hubris and ignorance, fuelled by relying on getting your scientific information from the daily press instead of the scientific journals you should be reading.

Go on - shift those goalposts. We're still waiting. You're not a troll, but you do seem to be some poor human being caught up trying to maintain a cognitive dissonance which threatens to make you realise you're being incredibly selfish and stubborn at the expense of everyone else to follow you. If you're not, you are indistinguishable from one. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

It's climate change caused by global warming. Both expressions highlight different aspects of the issue, but both are equally valid.

Also, both terms were already in use long before it became a well known public issue.

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Many of the adjustments to the data are actually downward i.e. it reduces the warming trend. Here you can read about some of the adjustments and actually test it yourself using the provided data: http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=255

Water precipitates too quickly to be the cause of a forcing in temperature. As a greenhouse gas, its role is largely to amplify the warming caused by gasses like CO2 and methane.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Crappy and totally uninformative graph. Try some high resolution ones.

Then understand that follows temps

Even the Skeptical Science people agree but they try to dismiss it with a bunch of speculative "Ya...but...".

Even the IPCC admits this.

Facts are facts no matter where you find them. Don't be a Face Painting Homer cheering "my team rules, no matter what the score!"

Whereas in the real world, if you look at published papers rather than magazine articles, scientists predicted warming over cooling by a 6:1 ratio during 1965-1979.

Also, for those who didn't understand greenhouse gasses, cooling would be a natural supposition since we had been in an interglacial for about as long as the previous time. Turns out that interglacials aren't as clockwork as people used to think, but some scientists still think there's an end-interglacial forcing that partly counteracts the anthropogenic forcing in the opposite direction.

Please add these to your list of facts to ignore.

There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW.

Yeah, you're right, if you ignore sea surface temperatures, atmospheric temperature readings, deep ocean temperatures, or any other data. Other than that, no evidence at all.

The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade.

Even if the models are flawed (they're fine except for the large error bars), and even if the hiatus were real (it's not), a decade isn't that long in climate terms. But those things aren't true. As they say, no useful lie ever dies, right?

And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes ....) all have failed.

You do understand these predictions aren't going to come true for 100 years or more, right? Or do you get all your science from conspiracy theorists incapable of reading scientific papers themselves?

And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).

Again, you need to stop listening to stupid people. No storm can be caused by global warming any more than an avalanche can be caused by a snowflake. They're contributors that raise the odds of these events happening.

And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.

The national highway system, the Hoover dam, landing a man on the moon, creating the internet, providing health care in any country not called The United States of America, FDIC, rescuing GM, safety improvements in the auto industry, stopping Thalidomide in the US, banning CFCs...

That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head, though. Actual research would yield a bunch more, I'm sure. The fact you clearly haven't done it says a lot about why you believe the things you do.

But I'm not sure why I'm explaining this. You're not going to listen or understand any of it, are you?

the internet was a govenment thing? lol you went too far there. tut tut... landing a person on a moon isn't a problem, it's a waste of resources and dick waving to the russians. GM is a disaster and just a money maker for monsanto. saftey in the auto industry? germans made the first airbag and it's wasn't gov' funded, laminated windscreens - yeah you guessed it not a gov' funded thing, seat belts? same again, only later did they decide to bring them into law. please stop chucking around the word fact, you don't know what it means. fact.

There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW.

Yeah, you're right, if you ignore sea surface temperatures, atmospheric temperature readings, deep ocean temperatures, or any other data. Other than that, no evidence at all.

The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade.

Even if the models are flawed (they're fine except for the large error bars), and even if the hiatus were real (it's not), a decade isn't that long in climate terms. But those things aren't true. As they say, no useful lie ever dies, right?

And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes ....) all have failed.

You do understand these predictions aren't going to come true for 100 years or more, right? Or do you get all your science from conspiracy theorists incapable of reading scientific papers themselves?

And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).

Again, you need to stop listening to stupid people. No storm can be caused by global warming any more than an avalanche can be caused by a snowflake. They're contributors that raise the odds of these events happening.

And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.

The national highway system, the Hoover dam, landing a man on the moon, creating the internet, providing health care in any country not called The United States of America, FDIC, rescuing GM, safety improvements in the auto industry, stopping Thalidomide in the US, banning CFCs...

That's just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head, though. Actual research would yield a bunch more, I'm sure. The fact you clearly haven't done it says a lot about why you believe the things you do.

But I'm not sure why I'm explaining this. You're not going to listen or understand any of it, are you?

All of the models used to predict GW have failed, miserably...

False.

The last 17 years show warming: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g... . Regardless, there is very rarely a time when you cannot find a value of x such that you can say "There has been no warming since x!" For instance, this year was a record hot year. Unless next year is another record year we will be able to say "There has been no warming since 2014!" So what? For the entire record you can find a value of x that satisfies the statement. Yet we have warmed over the entire period: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Over the last 37 years one can identify overlapping short windows of time when climate "skeptics" could have argued (and often did...) that global warming had stopped. And yet over the entire period question containing these six cooling trends, the underlying trend is one of rapid global warming (0.27C per decade, according to the new Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature [BEST] dataset). - http://www.skepticalscience.co...

"...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1C on average since 1950."

I would be leery about listening to Judith Curry. She is often wrong: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

I'd be leery of a series of greeny globalwarmy newsy 'Hottest Year' claims that are weighted heavily on surface thermometer readings and beat the previous record by "a tiny, effectively unmeasurable 0.02C" that is (conveniently, suspiciously) not divulged in the press release, an amount which is within the margin for error... lest people suspect that they are being emotionally manipulated in a very unscientific way. When you responsibly consider statistical error, 2014 is a tie year.

For a more reasoned compilation of sources on temperature data related to this announcement, check the sources cited on this evil page of devil-spawn skepticism at Climate Depot.

These announcements are good for only two things:
1. scaring people for political purposes
2. playing THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER! drinking game

We have a winner. Let's all have a drink.

Except humans don't emit a lot of water vapor.

They do however emit a lot of CO2 and Methane, which as part of the feedbook loop in global warming causes more water vapor in the air, further exacerbating the heating effects of all greenhouse gases, H2O included.

The water vapor argument is a deflection, and a poor one at that.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

I didn't claim they were identical. I claimed that what differences were left were due to the distance from the star.

You managed to repeat yourself about seven times without saying what you meant. You are clearly confused about the subject, but it's nice how you can turn that around and claim it as someone else's problem.

It's good we're talking about just Venus now, because mentioning any other planets would make absolutely no sense. Mars' atmospheric pressure is .6% of Earth's at their respective surfaces, and most of the gas giants emit more energy from internal heating than they receive from the Sun, so if they fit your theory's temperature curve you would have a good deal of trouble to explain why.

What is more, if you look at the temperature of Venus by altitude, you'll find that if you go up in Vensus' atmosphere by about a mile... call it the difference between Los Angeles and Denver... temperatures become tolerable for humans.

Before you say something like this you might want to verify it. Because if by "about a mile" you meant "about 50 kilometers" You would have been a lot closer to being right.

But wait, there's more! We are now saying that the temperature at the same pressure (1 atm was given) should only depend on the distance to the star. Clearly, given the graph in the previous post, this would be a coincidence; the temperature profiles look nothing alike. But let's just see if the math works out. Venus is 339 K at 1 atm pressure, Earth is 288 K. So never mind about any of this pesky atmospheric physics stuff, in order to work out the temperature of one, we just need to know the temperature of the other and the ratio of their distances from the source. Starting with Earth...oh dear. That doesn't work out at all. Well I am sure it will work the other way around. Oh no! I'm afraid it's not looking good for this theory.

Which is good, because chemical composition makes a huge difference. Venus reflects most of the light that hits it; less than 10% reaches the surface. It also wouldn't make sense to throw out everything we know about atmospheric physics based on one data point. Why don't you take a minute to read about the reality of Venus' atmosphere, rather than spitting out mis-remembered and false talking points?

As usual, the second link in google answers exactly why.

Lower solar radiation probably played a role but mainly the 8000 ppm is probably wrong:

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2 levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

No amount of sound argumentation will help you phantom, because, as we both know, you are only interested in tickling your own motivated reasoning. It doesn't matter that the AGW theory doesn't rely on models. It doesn't matter surface temperature has next to nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter that 2014 was warmer than 1998, when there was no El Nino in 2014, and a record El Nino in 1998.

What matters is that you are right, and you are going to prove it, no matter what.

How can this be +5 Insightful?

>There is no global warming theory without a tested model. [...] Please contradict me... show me your validated model.

Global warming is an observation not a theory or a model. Global warming is a scientific fact.

There are trivial experiments proving some anthropomorphic incidence (reminder: we are pumping CO2 and methane in the atmosphere at an amazing rate). Correlation with CO2 is established.

In order to stop anthropomorphic incidence, you need a political campaign.

Please contradict me... show me your observations, your scientific facts.

Mann spliced actual temps when the divergence problem made tree ring density derived temps unusable for the hockey stick graph. After 1960 the dendrochronology revealed that temps did not correlate with density of tree rings so he simply used actual temps to complete the graph. The claim is that the divergence problem in new and just showed up recently so older dendro records were suitable while after 1960 they are no good. http://www.skepticalscience.co... LOL convenient!

Sounds great. Let's start with you. Every breath you take expels CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change which affects every person on the planet.

Much as I love a good tu-quoque, the above doesn't really apply in any meaningful way. Breathing is carbon-neutral.

The fact that CO2 absorbs IR under controlled conditions in your basement means essentially nothing.

Why? Propose a mechanism. If what you're saying is true, there has to be an effect to counter the CO2+H2O forcing. It has to be a large effect since the positive feedback is strong. That should make it easy to find. Go ahead, find the evidence, show us what we're missing.

... look at the increase over the last decade where warming has flatlined while CO2 substantially increased.

I am not aware that the warming has done any such thing, and most of the warmest years on record fall in the last decade. The multi-decadal trend is upwards, in close agreement with theoretical predictions.

Come back to us after you look up what percentage of the earths atmosphere is CO2...

Now here's a fact in search of an argument. Either you're disputing easily-observed facts about CO2, solar irradiance, and radiative physics, or you have to admit that CO2 causes warming. Specifically, all other things being equal, a doubling of CO2 results in about 4 W/m^2 of warming. Since I know you're not going to dispute basic laws of physics, we're back to the top of this post, where you find the term that makes a bunch of positive feedbacks go negative, but only on this planet, and only when it's convenient, and contrary to observations.

Here's a brief summary of the "real science" for you. I'd start with the 'basic' tab if I were you, based on your frothing-at-the-mouth tone.

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

Good point - except that the oceans are currently accumulating energy. If your theory were true then the oceans would currently be releasing their energy to the atmosphere. In fact the oceans have never (in the record) been hotter: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

First of all, they're posted on "Watts Up With That?" and that's never a good place to start.

The central problem with "no global warming since 1997" is that 1998 was an unusually warm year due to an unusually strong El Nino effect (which started in 1997). When you start your trend line with exceptional data, you will always get garbage results and it doesn't matter what trend you're trying to measure. Interestingly enough the years 2005, 2010 and now 2014 are all warmer than 1998 and none of them feature a strong El Nino like we saw in 1998. Since a strong El Nino will raise global atmospheric temperatures by around 0.5 degrees, that means we have definitely seen warming when the year-to-year noise of ENSO (El Nino and La Nina) effects are accounted for. There's also the little tidbit that 1998 is only year in the top 10 warmest years that not in this century, which makes the "no warming since 1998" seem a bit bogus, doesn't it?

You don't have to take my word for it, though you can read more about it, if you want.

A skeptic will look at a variety of sources and will concentrate on those that challenge his already-held views. You aren't doing that in this case. You quickly found something that espouses one view, and then you stopped.

This contradicts your article.

For what it's worth, I like many would greatly prefer if AGW was bollocks, but it's quite fucking obvious that it isn't. Nuclear energy is definitely the best way to go, and people who accept AGW but oppose that are people who I suspect are more influenced by ideology than by facts.

Climate models may one day mature to something beyond the basket of hypotheses they are now, but none of them have yet been successful in predicting climate data, except where the null hypothesis also predicted that data.

Wrong. Manabe and Wetherald predicted in the 1960s that greenhouse warming would cause the stratosphere to cool when the troposphere warmed, whereas increasing solar intensity (the null hypothesis) would cause both the stratosphere and the troposphere to warm simultaneously.

The observed temperature trends agree with the greenhouse warming predictions and disagree with the brightening sun predictions.

Subsequent modeling work predicted dozens of ways in which the greenhouse warming and brightening sun would produce different patterns (e.g., greenhouse gases would cause nighttime temperatures to warm more than daytime temperatures, whereas increasing the brightness of the sun with no change in the greenhouse effect would cause days to warm more than nights). And today when we look at the patterns of observed warming, they overwhelmingly agree with the greenhouse warming predictions and disagree with the brightening sun predictions.

Skeptical Science is neither. It is a propaganda website, run by the innermost clique of fraudsters accused of manipulating data, "hiding the decline", and suppressing all dissenting evidence.

Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.

Of course they publish work that supports their own opinions.

The link from above is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.

Those idiots actually still support Mann's Hockey Stick - what may be one of the most thoroughly disproven claims in modern science.

Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".

It's be more remarkable if Skeptical Science ever admitted to error, or allowed dissent.

If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.

The fact is that every single climate model predicted major increases in temperature that have not occurred. Yet somehow these models are still supposed to be correct?

That's a claim, not a fact, and Skeptical Science has a debunking of that claim too.

Skeptical Science is neither. It is a propaganda website, run by the innermost clique of fraudsters accused of manipulating data, "hiding the decline", and suppressing all dissenting evidence.

Actually, that's just wrong. Skeptical science was started by a cartoonist, and the people involved there are mostly not climate scientists, so your first claim is obviously false.

Of course they publish work that supports their own opinions.

The link from above is merely an explanation of why the claim that warming stopped in 1998 is wrong with actual links to the peer reviewed science to back up the facts used in the explanation.

Those idiots actually still support Mann's Hockey Stick - what may be one of the most thoroughly disproven claims in modern science.

Actually, it may surprise you but is has not been disproven at all. In fact, "[m]ore than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph".

It's be more remarkable if Skeptical Science ever admitted to error, or allowed dissent.

If have seen both, what they don't allow is people to post demonstrably false information, go off topic or dip into personal insults.

The fact is that every single climate model predicted major increases in temperature that have not occurred. Yet somehow these models are still supposed to be correct?

That's a claim, not a fact, and Skeptical Science has a debunking of that claim too.

It's not even a matter of whether a particular substance is a "pollutant" or "toxic". Many necessary substances can be harmful if present in high concentrations. You can die just by drinking too much water. That doesn't mean that water's a pollutant, even though too much can kill you. The argument that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because plants need it is similarly confused -- too much of a good thing can be harmful.

To get to the heart of the matter, the EPA considers any harmful emission to be a pollutant, even if the substance emitted is necessary for life.

perhaps you need an update of the real science - try this for a start. http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.

The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.

Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.

The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.

Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.

The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.

Nearly everything you just said is blatantly untrue.

The Arctic ice cap IS shrinking.
Its mass loss is an undebatable fact.
The total volume and mass of ice is only 25% of what it was in 1979. That's not up for debate. That is a fact.
When plotted, the trend is clearly downward. Ignorant people have been siezing on the fact that "2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 before" while ignoring hte overall trend, or the fact that 2012 was a record low, and the past few years while higher than 2012, are still lower than the plotted average. it IS shrinking.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Actually yes.
There is more sea is because the water is freshening. Again: not a debateable fact. The less salty water is, the higher the temperature it can freeze at.
To say its freezing because its cold is to ingore the fact that the sea ice is increasing, EVEN AS THOSE REGIONS ARE WARMING, both air and sea temps.
On its own warming environment cannot produce more ice, thats not how ice works. It is only by accounting for the chainging composition of the freezeing water, specifically its salinty, that we can explain how ice can increase at the same time that both air and sea temperatures in the area are rising. Its because of fresh water inputs from the melthing land ice chainging hte local salinity of the sea water.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

And you pulled out the same tired of myth about the "heat islands." and "the heat isnt there."
guess what, the scientists arent dumb. they were after all the ones who first noticed the heat island effect. and its already been shown several times that even removing the data from said heat island (of which the sensors make up less than 25% of the total data; ie, most sensors arent subject to the phenonona youre referencing), the warming trend is still readily present, and it doesnt even effect the overall plotted data or trendlines. notice: not just compensating for the HIE, but wholly and completely removing those data points from the data, and it doesnt affect the overall picture.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

In short: you're full of it and dont have a clue what youre talking about.
But that doesnt stop you from spouting the same myths over and over without any scientific evidence.
And as long as you do, I'll be there, beating you over the head with the facts drawn from actual science and observation.

They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.

The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co...
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

It's the sun. And no, according to the guys who actually study this sort of thing, we're not far enough into the solar minimum to be in an actual cooling phase yet. Give it a couple more years.

No, the CAGW fans didn't look at the sun "first" - and they keep looking everywhere else. I had a climate scientist angrily tell me that "insolation is a constant!" Not according to the astronomers, it isn't.

What's even more fun is that, even if you treat total solar irradiance as a (very wobbly) constant, you have moderate variations in the frequencies of light that make up that "constant." On big variable is the amount of UV light that makes up sunlight - and (again, oddly enough), that variation has a strong match to global warming.

Some of the CAGW folks looked at the number of sunspots (after the skeptics pointed out the Sun as a possible driver) - but that's not the cycle to look for. It's actually a combination of several cycles, and the 11 year cycle is pretty much the least of those.

One more thing: if you're interested in following the ACTUAL debate over CAGW, stay away from skepticalscience. They're deeply dishonest, and have a strong tendency to delete any posts that argue against CAGW in any way.

They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.

The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co...
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

It's the sun. And no, according to the guys who actually study this sort of thing, we're not far enough into the solar minimum to be in an actual cooling phase yet. Give it a couple more years.

No, the CAGW fans didn't look at the sun "first" - and they keep looking everywhere else. I had a climate scientist angrily tell me that "insolation is a constant!" Not according to the astronomers, it isn't.

What's even more fun is that, even if you treat total solar irradiance as a (very wobbly) constant, you have moderate variations in the frequencies of light that make up that "constant." On big variable is the amount of UV light that makes up sunlight - and (again, oddly enough), that variation has a strong match to global warming.

Some of the CAGW folks looked at the number of sunspots (after the skeptics pointed out the Sun as a possible driver) - but that's not the cycle to look for. It's actually a combination of several cycles, and the 11 year cycle is pretty much the least of those.

One more thing: if you're interested in following the ACTUAL debate over CAGW, stay away from skepticalscience. They're deeply dishonest, and have a strong tendency to delete any posts that argue against CAGW in any way.

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

• Hockey stick is broken
• CO2 lags temperature
• Temp record is unreliable
• Models are unreliable
• It's a natural cycle

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

• Hockey stick is broken
• CO2 lags temperature
• Temp record is unreliable
• Models are unreliable
• It's a natural cycle

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

• Hockey stick is broken
• CO2 lags temperature
• Temp record is unreliable
• Models are unreliable
• It's a natural cycle

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

• Hockey stick is broken
• CO2 lags temperature
• Temp record is unreliable
• Models are unreliable
• It's a natural cycle

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

• Hockey stick is broken
• CO2 lags temperature
• Temp record is unreliable
• Models are unreliable
• It's a natural cycle

so you obviously dont actually know anything about the NIPCC.

the NIPCC are not actual scientists, and they have not put forward evidence capable of withstanding scientific scrutiny.
the NIPCC cherry picks data that supports them, rather than presenting all the data.
When TFA talks about "conclusions based on a priori convictions"...the NIPCC is one of the groups they are talking about.

The sole purpose of the NIPCC is not to present any evidence, nor even survey and report on on the sum body of all the research.
Rather it's sole purpose is to poke holes in the IPCC, something its members are paid to do:

On the other hand, according to the Heartland 2012 budget plan, the purpose of the NIPCC report is to critique the IPCC report. According to the Heartland 2012 Fundraising Plan, its purpose is to create a rebuttal to the IPCC report.

In short, the purpose of the IPCC report is to accurately summarize the most up-to-date state of climate science research and understanding, whereas the purpose of the NIPCC report is to try and poke holes in the IPCC report (unsuccessfully, as we will see below).

Second, unlike the IPCC report, the scientists contributing to the NIPCC report are paid for their efforts. The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012). The 2011 Interim NIPCC report has 3 lead authors (Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter) and 8 contributors (Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar), most of whom also receive a monthly salary from the Heartland Institute.

Note that Heartland is not the only think tank contributing to the NIPCC report; the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (CSCDGC) and Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) are both listed as contributors on the document's front cover.

Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.

The NIPCC cherry picks data, chiefly that of "skeptics" that support their already made conclusions and goals:

The NIPCC report exclusively examines the literature published by climate "skeptics," whereas the IPCC report examines the work of both "skeptics" and mainstream climate scientists.

The NIPCC repeats and perpetuates bad science and myths, including cliamte myths that contradict each other:

Climate scientists Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt have also documented a number of the long-debunked climate myths propagated in previous NIPCC reports, which we have rebutted by examining the full body of scientific literature at Skeptical Science (click the links below for the myth debunkings):

• Hockey stick is broken
• CO2 lags temperature
• Temp record is unreliable
• Models are unreliable
• It's a natural cycle

They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.

The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co...
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

They dont account for the sun?
Son, that the was among the first things they looked at.
And theyve looked at it several times since.
It's not the sun, son.
If it was the sun, we would be cooling right now.

The 11yr cycle bit is also misleading: there is some periodicity, but there is a lot of noise in that signal, as shown in this graph (which also conventiently shows that temperatures, and solar output have been moving in opposite directions for the past 35 years): http://www.skepticalscience.co...
From: http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Feel free to cite the actual scientific papers predicting global cooling, as opposed to media hype about some speculation at the time. [david_thornley]

... the National Academy of Sciences itself was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action (Science News, Jan. 25 1975, p. 52). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

As for the mentioned announcement it is in THIS issue of Science News, in the article "NAS Warning On Climate Changes". Exactly as mentioned in the "Chilling Possibilities" article that is linked to in the page that I originally linked to, and EXACTLY as I stated it. The "NAS Warning On Climate Changes" article itself is behind a paywall. If it weren't, I would have linked to it directly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

Okay, so you read a blog which linked to an article which mentioned an announcement by the NAS. Then you responded to David Thornley's request for actual scientific papers predicting global cooling by saying "the NAS was convinced enough of the "Global Cooling" scare to actually publish a call for immediate action."

Did you ever think it might be educational to actually read that NAS report first-hand rather than relying on third-hand interpretations of interpretations? If you did, you'd discover that the 1975 NAS report (PDF) "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" doesn't predict global cooling. Quite the opposite! Read their words:

"Of the two forms of pollution, the carbon dioxide increase is probably the more influential at the present time in changing temperatures near the earth's surface (Mitchell, 1973a)."

"The corresponding changes of mean atmospheric temperature due to CO2 [as calculated by Manabe (1971) on the assumption of constant relative humidity and fixed cloudiness] are about 0.3C per 10 percent change of CO2 and appear capable of accounting for only a fraction of the observed warming of the earth between 1880 and 1940. They could, however, conceivably aggregate to a further warming of about 0.5C between now and the end of the century."

How ironic! Instead of predicting global cooling, the NAS actually predicted "about 0.5C" of CO2-based warming between 1975 and 2000. To see how their prediction fared, let's plot HadCRUT4 over that timespan. The raw data shows warming of 0.47C from 1975 to 2000, which rounds up to 0.5C.

So that 1975 NAS report wasn't predicting global cooling! Its warming prediction was actually fairly accurate, and was certainly within the statistical uncertainties.

Again, that's probably why the National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane tries to explain why that NAS report predicting about 0.5C of