Yeah, there's a big push on, because the denier's "[x] years without statistically significant warming" line,a href = "http://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-year-saw-the-warmest-september-on-record-2014-10">appears to have folded.
So they're scrambling for some other misinformation.
I wouldn't worry about the USA's response for now, let the position themselves over last century's economy. There are plenty of companies in the rest of the world that will cheerfully take their business going forward.
The junk science has got to stop. GAO report [gao.gov]: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.
It turns out its cheaper to produce essays denying science than to actually do science.
A lot of people would say that it is also more valuable.
Well the problem was that Democrats wanted to use it to win elections - "If you don't vote for us, the oceans will cover the entire planet and we'll all die!!" Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
So your suggestion that there is some change from one to the other is wrong. Needless to add, your suggested reason for this non-existent change is also wrong.
Perhaps you missed the actual focus of the paper. Changes in ocean currents that occurred 2.7 million years ago initiated the northern hemisphere glaciation, by enhanced inter-hemispheric heat and salt transport.
If you are just coming to that realization now, maybe we shouldn't be trusting you to 'fight climate change' with our hard earned tax dollars.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about what this is. It's is a scientific paper about a change to ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. It doesn't affect your tax dollars. That is affected by your governments.
Yes the ocean is a FACTOR. The Sun is a greater factor.
The ocean is a factor in the Norther Hemisphere Glaciation 2.7 million years ago. (As you can see from the abstract to the paper the articles is about). It is a factor because it transported heat from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Hence the title of the paper: "Antarctic role in Northern Hemisphere glaciation".
The sun has a different effect entirely, it changes the amount of energy incident on the whole globe/
I think that mental instability and social issues is at the heart of this tragedy, not terrorism nor insufficient power to monitor or detain. He actively tried to be detained, to no avail, and made himself well enough known to the authorities.
Prove it.
If you can find it in 20 seconds, you could have settled it to much better satisfaction by providing the link.
I'm also going to call this myth busted on failure on your part to find it as well as failure on my part to find it.
If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail.
From the post to which you are replying: GISS and "Steve Goddard" gets a whole stack of denier blogs.
You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").
It's certainly one of my interests.
Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?
Probably you only wrote for the lulz, but I'm somewhat baffled. Obviously less hairy in Africa, due to climate
Not due to climate. Inuit aren't as hairier than Europeans, and Indians and Australian aboriginals can be very hairy.
But in parts of Africa, they have no arm hair at all. Not even the vestigial stuff. I think we'd gone further from the common ancestor with chimps/bonobos before we mixed back with Neanderthals.
African lips are further from chimps than Europeans too.
But more upright posture? I see caucasians with a more upright posture than Africans.
Do you? I definitely see the Sudanese around here always straight as a die, no hint of a slouch.
It is the forehead that's baffling: caucasians generally have a tall, upright forehead, while africans often have a gentler elevation angle from the eyebrows up... Which is a neanderthal feature.
I have a flat forehead, it's smoothly curved from my eyes to my hairline, but the furthest part forward of it is my brow ridges. But those tall hairless Africans have a forehead that bulges out in the centre.
Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds.
Hmmm. Doesn't inspire confidence does it?
Since GISS's is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, googling "GISS" and "Goddard" gets a lot of hits. GISS and "Steve Goddard" gets a whole stack of denier blogs.
I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.
What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"?
Because he's got no scientific research background, and he spreads the standard anti-science agenda, for the standard George C Marshall Institute-funded culprits.
If someone has a scientific point, and isn't a charlatan, they usually publish in the scholarly literature so that the scientific community can vet what they write. Going straight to the public with ideas that aren't in the literature is a sign of anti-science.
Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data.
Then he's focussing on the USA data, because the global data's adjustment is about 0. The cause of the bias in the adjustments to the USA data is a general shift in the time of observation across the country. It's warmer and 2pm than it is at 10am. So you have to adjust if you want to compare temperatures at 10am with ones at 2pm.
Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist
If he's doesn't understand all the adjustments, he should ask the NCDC about them, they're the experts. It is quite normal for a station to be removed for purposes of estimating the trend of a grid, if it shows signs of being anomalous. Such as a step change that didn't occur at surrounding stations, or a trend that is too different from that of surrounding stations.
Different temperature data sets have different policies on infilling where there is no data in the grid. GISTemp interpolates from the trend in adjacent grids, or the nearest grid that does have data. HadCRU calculates the temperature based on grids that they have data for. I don't know NCDC's policy, but "infilling" is one of the things that is done.
Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.
They said the temperatures are "as intended", and there was no problem. They were intending to add a flag to the final data to show which temperature stations were interpolated because of anomalous trends or step changes.
Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.
The presence or absence of a flag on the data to show its provenance does not mean it is not working properly.
Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.
Have they. Do you have a link to this admission?
Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets.
There are two links. One to the CSIRO sea level rise data and one to the energy imbalance data. They don't rely on the same data, and they're not about the same thing.
So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones
That's not a big problem, nor a problem. Trends for stations are interpolated if the station's trend is clearly anomalous. This happens both up and down, and the net effect is almost exactly zero on the global trend.
Cherry picking one that has been adjusted up, and making a big song and dance ignores the fact that that is not representative of the adjustments, and frankly, that the adjustments are quite correct to make.
My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of c
Over a decade ago I submitted a project to carry data in Antarctica by a 1500km fiber for a large project. It was shut down by the Americans because according to the Antarctic Treaty you cannot leave anything in Antarctica permanently.
I think that they pull it back up when they're done, as they did last year: Although Tyler’s team pulled its instruments out of the borehole in January 2013, the mooring that held the cable in place remains frozen into the ice shelf, he says—and the team hopes they can get back to it for a longer term monitoring project.
Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
I suspect not primarily, but it is contributing. The source I saw was 100-200mW per square metre from geothermal effects. The average warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect is about 900mW per square metre.
Of course glaciers tend to have high albedo, so the total effect might be closer. On the other hand Antarctica has low absolute humidity, so the CO2 greenhouse effect is stronger there (since there is a large overlap between CO2 and H2O absorbance), and the ice-albedo effect is also very strong there. (Since the ice is white, and the rock and ocean both dark).
If you don't believe, try looking HERE [wordpress.com], and HERE [wordpress.com].
You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?
Do you think that would help?
What kind of luddite world are you posting from?
I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.
I suspect that this is bullshit.
The luddite blogs you linked to only discussed the USA for a reason: There is a time of observation bias that is in one direction in that data set. For the global data set the adjustments average nearly zero.
NOAA's claim (verified by GISTemp), is that the last 6 months are the warmest ever globally.
Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.
Really. Citation please.
Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.
What's the luddite explanation for that?
Alas, THIS PAIR [nature.com] OF PAPERS [nature.com] shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.
I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper: These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
The second paper also confirms warming, explicitly in the abstract. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m2 from 2005 to 2013.
That estimate agrees with the 0.9 W/m-1 that is calculated from energy imbalance, which shows the opposite of what you claim. The warming of the oceans is consistent with accepted values of global warming.
Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.
Pro tip: Try to get one of my facts right before calling the scientific community "foolish".
There is probably another reason people aren't celebrating.
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.
Land based measurements are much more directly related to temperature, than satellites, and don't have the problems of interpreting the MSU readings as temperature, orbital drift, the fact that there have been fewer than three instruments in orbit for much of the time making calibration guesswork, and correcting for what the satellite orbits are passing over.
I would be very surprised if NOAA every claimed that satellite derived near-surface temperatures were more accurate than met stations. Do you have a link to one of the places that they make this claim? (Or did you just make it up yourself, and hope that people would believe you?)
And in what way did they ignore their own satellite records?
The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record.
Okay, again you're going to need to provide a source. I know of two groups interpreting satellite data. There's a couple of skeptics at UHA, and their satellite temperatures show this over the last 15 years. As you can see, it shows a warming trend.
The other is by a private company called Remote Sensing Systems. Their data looks like this. A very slight cooling, that I cannot believe would be "real cooling trend", if by real you mean statistically significant.
(The fact that the difference in warming trends spans the difference in the warming trends of the land-based measurements is indicative that the satellite temperatures are in fact, less accurate than land based ones.)
Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years.
If the sea is rising, then it is warming. Sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion and by melting land ice. Both require energy in.
But your claim that it is not accelerating does not have any consensus from the scientific community. Most people would say that it is accelerating. For instance:
There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year2, respectively. - Church and White (2011)
The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.
Given your questionable points above, I also question this conclusion. What is the basis of your claim of "fudging". Are you one of these conspiracy theorists who claim that the vast majority of scientists advance their careers by producing papers that claim results that aren't reproducible? Because that is literally in-credible.
Now it is China that is steadily building a stairway to the moon, while America focuses on a few scientific projects that are charismatic, but underfunding science in general.
One possible way
of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person
who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial
capacity.His task might comprise the following:
[...]
b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by
providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with y
private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause,
and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories
which have the necessary equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
but that will - eventually - be countered somewhat by the albedo effect of the large scale clouds that will form.
Possibly, but probably not.
Yeah, there's a big push on, because the denier's "[x] years without statistically significant warming" line ,a href = "http://www.businessinsider.com.au/this-year-saw-the-warmest-september-on-record-2014-10">appears to have folded.
So they're scrambling for some other misinformation.
I wouldn't worry about the USA's response for now, let the position themselves over last century's economy. There are plenty of companies in the rest of the world that will cheerfully take their business going forward.
The junk science has got to stop. GAO report [gao.gov]: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.
It turns out its cheaper to produce essays denying science than to actually do science.
A lot of people would say that it is also more valuable.
Well the problem was that Democrats wanted to use it to win elections - "If you don't vote for us, the oceans will cover the entire planet and we'll all die!!" Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".
How come the EU are committed to 20% reduction on 1990 CO2 emissions by 2020, and want to negotiate that up to 30%?
How come the UK, is committed to an 80% CO2 reduction on 1990 levels by 2050?
Did the democrats get to them, or is there some non-american-centric science behind the policy?
FYI the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are both in use in the scholarly literature. For instance:
Global warming and changes in drought NATURE (2014)
Climate change and wind intensification in coastal upwelling ecosystems SCIENCE (2014)
So your suggestion that there is some change from one to the other is wrong. Needless to add, your suggested reason for this non-existent change is also wrong.
No shit, idiots.
Perhaps you missed the actual focus of the paper. Changes in ocean currents that occurred 2.7 million years ago initiated the northern hemisphere glaciation, by enhanced inter-hemispheric heat and salt transport.
If you are just coming to that realization now, maybe we shouldn't be trusting you to 'fight climate change' with our hard earned tax dollars.
You seem to have a misunderstanding about what this is. It's is a scientific paper about a change to ocean circulation 2.7 million years ago. It doesn't affect your tax dollars. That is affected by your governments.
Yes the ocean is a FACTOR. The Sun is a greater factor.
The ocean is a factor in the Norther Hemisphere Glaciation 2.7 million years ago. (As you can see from the abstract to the paper the articles is about). It is a factor because it transported heat from the northern hemisphere to the southern. Hence the title of the paper: "Antarctic role in Northern Hemisphere glaciation".
The sun has a different effect entirely, it changes the amount of energy incident on the whole globe/
CO2? not so much.
CO2 has been a significant forcing of global mean temperature throughout the past 420 million years. Particularly for the current warming, it is the largest single forcing.
These Last 6 Months Were The Warmest Humans Have Ever Recorded On Earth
I think that mental instability and social issues is at the heart of this tragedy, not terrorism nor insufficient power to monitor or detain. He actively tried to be detained, to no avail, and made himself well enough known to the authorities.
You call it wrong.
Prove it.
If you can find it in 20 seconds, you could have settled it to much better satisfaction by providing the link.
I'm also going to call this myth busted on failure on your part to find it as well as failure on my part to find it.
If all you did was Google "GISS" and "Goddard", that's a pretty obvious fail.
From the post to which you are replying:
GISS and "Steve Goddard" gets a whole stack of denier blogs.
You know, it's funny how "khayman80", and people like you, who write in ways that are remarkably similar, tend to pop up at the same time in the same places. And in particular, much like the comments by "khayman80", all of "your" comments seem to be about global warming (aka "climate change").
It's certainly one of my interests.
Hmmmm.... I think I smell yet another sockpuppet. Does anybody know how long "Truth_Quark" has been around Slashdot?
The Userids are sequential, n00b.
Probably you only wrote for the lulz, but I'm somewhat baffled. Obviously less hairy in Africa, due to climate
Not due to climate. Inuit aren't as hairier than Europeans, and Indians and Australian aboriginals can be very hairy.
But in parts of Africa, they have no arm hair at all. Not even the vestigial stuff. I think we'd gone further from the common ancestor with chimps/bonobos before we mixed back with Neanderthals.
African lips are further from chimps than Europeans too.
But more upright posture? I see caucasians with a more upright posture than Africans.
Do you? I definitely see the Sudanese around here always straight as a die, no hint of a slouch.
It is the forehead that's baffling: caucasians generally have a tall, upright forehead, while africans often have a gentler elevation angle from the eyebrows up... Which is a neanderthal feature.
I have a flat forehead, it's smoothly curved from my eyes to my hairline, but the furthest part forward of it is my brow ridges. But those tall hairless Africans have a forehead that bulges out in the centre.
I think that some of those Africans look a little bit more Homo Sapien than Europeans who have the Neanderthal Genes.
A little bit more upright, less stooped, a little bit less hairy, a little mound of forebrain in their foreheads.
There's a lot of genetic variation in Africa by comparison though. I'm thinking of those tall, really black-skinned, Sudanese looking people.
Try Google, dumbshit. Unless you don’t know how. It took me all of 20 seconds.
Hmmm. Doesn't inspire confidence does it?
Since GISS's is the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, googling "GISS" and "Goddard" gets a lot of hits. GISS and "Steve Goddard" gets a whole stack of denier blogs.
I'm going to call this Myth Busted on the 20 seconds claim alone.
What makes you think "Steve Goddard's" blog is "anti-science"?
Because he's got no scientific research background, and he spreads the standard anti-science agenda, for the standard George C Marshall Institute-funded culprits. If someone has a scientific point, and isn't a charlatan, they usually publish in the scholarly literature so that the scientific community can vet what they write. Going straight to the public with ideas that aren't in the literature is a sign of anti-science.
Goddard examines raw data records and compares against the "adjusted" data.
Then he's focussing on the USA data, because the global data's adjustment is about 0. The cause of the bias in the adjustments to the USA data is a general shift in the time of observation across the country. It's warmer and 2pm than it is at 10am. So you have to adjust if you want to compare temperatures at 10am with ones at 2pm.
Steve Goddard that NCDC was improperly "infilling" as much as 40% of its data in some cases from temperature stations that were offline or did not even exist
If he's doesn't understand all the adjustments, he should ask the NCDC about them, they're the experts. It is quite normal for a station to be removed for purposes of estimating the trend of a grid, if it shows signs of being anomalous. Such as a step change that didn't occur at surrounding stations, or a trend that is too different from that of surrounding stations.
Different temperature data sets have different policies on infilling where there is no data in the grid. GISTemp interpolates from the trend in adjacent grids, or the nearest grid that does have data. HadCRU calculates the temperature based on grids that they have data for. I don't know NCDC's policy, but "infilling" is one of the things that is done.
Not only that, NCDC publicly admitted that infilling was a problem, that they had known about it (for some unspecified time), and that they "intended to fix it" at some unspecified time in the future. Nobody knows how long they had known about it or when they intend to fix it.
They said the temperatures are "as intended", and there was no problem. They were intending to add a flag to the final data to show which temperature stations were interpolated because of anomalous trends or step changes.
Obviously, nobody needs to "fix" something that is working properly.
The presence or absence of a flag on the data to show its provenance does not mean it is not working properly.
Granted, Goddard got some things wrong in the beginning, but lately he's been getting a lot more right, as even GISS has admitted.
Have they. Do you have a link to this admission?
Further, your sources are not all "independent", since most of them incestuously rely on the same questionable data sets.
There are two links. One to the CSIRO sea level rise data and one to the energy imbalance data. They don't rely on the same data, and they're not about the same thing.
So don't sit there and tell me what your vaunted sources say, until you address the data they are all using. There are KNOWN serious problems with it. Not just minor problems; big ones
That's not a big problem, nor a problem. Trends for stations are interpolated if the station's trend is clearly anomalous. This happens both up and down, and the net effect is almost exactly zero on the global trend.
Cherry picking one that has been adjusted up, and making a big song and dance ignores the fact that that is not representative of the adjustments, and frankly, that the adjustments are quite correct to make.
My "collection" consists of web links to official data, of c
Over a decade ago I submitted a project to carry data in Antarctica by a 1500km fiber for a large project. It was shut down by the Americans because according to the Antarctic Treaty you cannot leave anything in Antarctica permanently.
I think that they pull it back up when they're done, as they did last year:
Although Tyler’s team pulled its instruments out of the borehole in January 2013, the mooring that held the cable in place remains frozen into the ice shelf, he says—and the team hopes they can get back to it for a longer term monitoring project.
Is that the one that's shrinking due to geothermal effects?
I suspect not primarily, but it is contributing. The source I saw was 100-200mW per square metre from geothermal effects. The average warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect is about 900mW per square metre.
Of course glaciers tend to have high albedo, so the total effect might be closer. On the other hand Antarctica has low absolute humidity, so the CO2 greenhouse effect is stronger there (since there is a large overlap between CO2 and H2O absorbance), and the ice-albedo effect is also very strong there. (Since the ice is white, and the rock and ocean both dark).
That's okay. Since you can't be bothered to google it yourself, I'll help GP a bit and show you one.
I think you may have linked to the wrong paper.
The one you linked to doesn't have the word "geothermal" in it, and the science daily write up about the paper didn't mention this either.
If you don't believe, try looking HERE [wordpress.com], and HERE [wordpress.com].
You think if I read some anti-science blogs I would find that science is all wrong, and that the real truth can only be found in blogs that say that the scientists are all lying?
Do you think that would help?
What kind of luddite world are you posting from?
I have quite a collection of official government raw data that show a very different truth than what NOAA claims.
I suspect that this is bullshit.
The luddite blogs you linked to only discussed the USA for a reason: There is a time of observation bias that is in one direction in that data set. For the global data set the adjustments average nearly zero.
NOAA's claim (verified by GISTemp), is that the last 6 months are the warmest ever globally.
Hell, even the majority of climate scientists admit that it hasn't really warmed for 16 years or more now.
Really. Citation please.
Their last best hope for explaining why their CO2-warming climate models didn't correspond with reality was that the "missing heat" was hiding in the deep ocean.
That would explain sea level rising unabated, wouldn't it?
What's the luddite explanation for that? Alas, THIS PAIR [nature.com] OF PAPERS [nature.com] shows rather solidly that there isn't any "missing heat" being stored in the deep oceans.
I see you don't read your own links very well. From the abstract of the first paper:
These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 × 1022 J 35 yr1) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
The second paper also confirms warming, explicitly in the abstract.
The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64 ± 0.44 W m2 from 2005 to 2013.
That estimate agrees with the 0.9 W/m-1 that is calculated from energy imbalance, which shows the opposite of what you claim. The warming of the oceans is consistent with accepted values of global warming.
Too bad, so sad. Which is sarcasm, of course. People should be celebrating (and some are). But too many are so caught up in their ties to research grants or their "CO2 religion" to admit they're looking more foolish by the day.
Pro tip: Try to get one of my facts right before calling the scientific community "foolish".
There is probably another reason people aren't celebrating.
NOAA ignores its own satellite records (which it previously claimed were more accurate than surface temperature measurements) to make that claim.
Land based measurements are much more directly related to temperature, than satellites, and don't have the problems of interpreting the MSU readings as temperature, orbital drift, the fact that there have been fewer than three instruments in orbit for much of the time making calibration guesswork, and correcting for what the satellite orbits are passing over.
I would be very surprised if NOAA every claimed that satellite derived near-surface temperatures were more accurate than met stations. Do you have a link to one of the places that they make this claim? (Or did you just make it up yourself, and hope that people would believe you?)
And in what way did they ignore their own satellite records?
The satellite record has shown a slight but real cooling trend for a decade and a half, and a year that has actually been one of the COOLEST on record.
Okay, again you're going to need to provide a source. I know of two groups interpreting satellite data. There's a couple of skeptics at UHA, and their satellite temperatures show this over the last 15 years. As you can see, it shows a warming trend.
The other is by a private company called Remote Sensing Systems. Their data looks like this. A very slight cooling, that I cannot believe would be "real cooling trend", if by real you mean statistically significant.
(The fact that the difference in warming trends spans the difference in the warming trends of the land-based measurements is indicative that the satellite temperatures are in fact, less accurate than land based ones.)
Also, sea level is not rising. That is to say, it isn't rising any faster today than it has for the last couple of hundred years.
If the sea is rising, then it is warming. Sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion and by melting land ice. Both require energy in.
But your claim that it is not accelerating does not have any consensus from the scientific community. Most people would say that it is accelerating. For instance: There is considerable variability in the rate of rise during the twentieth century but there has been a statistically significant acceleration since 1880 and 1900 of 0.009 ± 0.003 mm year2 and 0.009 ± 0.004 mm year2, respectively. - Church and White (2011)
The amount of fudging that NOAA and its NCDC have to accomplish to make this year actually look warm, much less a record, is nothing short of incredible. I mean that word literally: in-credible.
Given your questionable points above, I also question this conclusion. What is the basis of your claim of "fudging". Are you one of these conspiracy theorists who claim that the vast majority of scientists advance their careers by producing papers that claim results that aren't reproducible? Because that is literally in-credible.
Fiber optics in Antarctica sounds extravagant and silly,
You realize that it's not being used for telecommunication, right? It's being used to measure the temperature of the ice.
They're starting with an assumption then trying to prove it.
What assumption are they starting with?
They're measuring the temperature of the ice. Making good measurements is science.
We already have 18 years of no warming
The last 6 months were the warmest on record for the NOAA and the GISTEMP data sets, so I think that the hiatus may have finished.
Throughout that time there was warming, it's just that the oceans and cryosphere have seen more warming than the global mean surface temperature.
along with every other of their claims being wrong.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Sea level is rising?
Now it is China that is steadily building a stairway to the moon, while America focuses on a few scientific projects that are charismatic, but underfunding science in general.
The viruses.
From the letter signed by Einstein to Roosevelt:
One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence and who could perhaps serve in an inofficial capacity.His task might comprise the following:
[...]
b) to speed up the experimental work,which is at present being carried on within the limits of the budgets of University laboratories, by providing funds, if such funds be required, through his contacts with y private persons who are willing to make contributions for this cause, and perhaps also by obtaining the co-operation of industrial laboratories which have the necessary equipment.
Which sounds kind of Manhattany to me.
Yep, a small bias.
There's a couple or few hundred watts unaccounted for though.