Maggie's Farm

Actually, nearly every research paper has a methods section, there have been studies strictly concerning the problem of measurement, and there's even an entire research program dedicated to the issue.


Yet, if you compare the satellite record of the lower troposphere to the surface record since 1978, they are in close agreement.

BillH: NOAA finaglers

That doesn't explain why satellite observations of the lower troposphere so closely track the surface records. When you have two completely different data-sets that compare, that lends confidence to the trend.

Dale...Grepse...let it go. The scam that all the world's scientists are committing a giant fraud is on it's last legs. People who "true believered" it in the face of actual science are about to look like real chumps.

It's over...let it go. We all believe in foolish things every now and then. No big whoop.

Dale: do people worry more or less about "global warming/Ice age Acomin'/ Climate Change/ Weather Disruption, now or 20 years ago?

The scientific evidence has continued to accumulate that humans are changing the climate.

BillH: Indisputable evidence has continued to accumulate that humans are changing the climate data.

Well, you could start with the raw, unadjusted data, and do an independent statistical analysis.

See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013. The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature is about 0.9°C in the past 50 years.

mudbug: I find it hilarious that satellite data is now trusted. I remember several years ago when warmists were working overtime to come up an explanation for the fact that satellite data didn't show warming.

That's what scientists do. When there is a discrepancy, they try and determine the cause of the discrepancy. Turns out that the early satellite measurements had problems with satellite drift and decay.

mudbug: Citing the EPA is a poor source.

Only if you have evidence that the graphs don't fairly represent the reporting of surface and satellite observations; otherwise, all you are doing is flailing. That leaves two separate data-sets showing the same trend.

jimg: The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.6 billion years.

Sure. However, human civilization has been built only in the last few thousands years, during a period with a relatively stable climate. Human civilization would be seriously impacted if it were to suddenly be thrust into another climate epoch.

jimg: And until you can tell me the perfect temperature of the Earth ...

Asked and answered.

2018-01-04: Asked and answered ...

2017-09-13: There is no perfect temperature; however, stability is preferred because the infrastructure of human civilization depends on such stability. For instance, large populations of humans live near sea level.

2017-11-12: Perfect for whom? That's rather a nonsense question. Human civilization evolved in a relatively stable climate over the last few thousand years. Too rapid of change will be bad human civilization, as well as to the ecosystem upon which they depend which takes time to adapt and evolve to a changing climate.

2017-11-21: We've address this before. It's a nonsense question, as there is no such thing as a perfect temperature for Earth. However, human civilization has developed during a long period of relatively stable climate, and stability is conducive to continued human prosperity.

Assistant Village Idiot: However, experts start hedging their bets at this point and reverting to evasive language.

Actually, there is a broad consensus that it is extremely likely humans have been the dominant cause of global warming.

Assistant Village Idiot: There has been slight warming since the end of the Little Ice Age.

What you call slight has had significant effects on humans. The problem is that anthropogenic warming is expected to continue. An increase of 2-4°C will have a profound impact on human civilization.

Sam L: I was taught (LO, those many years ago) in high school that the state I grew up in had been half-glaciated until about 15K years ago. The warming started...without factories, cars, trucks, SUVs...or even many humans.

Gee whiz! What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

In any case, the study of the last glaciation is an important part of paleoclimatology. While the warming was initiated by an increase in solar irradiance due to orbital variations, the climate response was more than would otherwise be expected. For instance, see Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011: On climate sensitivity, "combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty".

Assistant Village Idiot: Simply wrong on both counts.

Z: Actually, there is a broad consensus that it is extremely likely humans have been the dominant cause of global warming.

“Climate change is real… It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” — National Academies of Science; Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, U.K., U.S.

Z: What you call slight has had significant effects on humans.

Seriously? You don't consider the glacial period significant in terms of the human condition? The end of the last glacial period saw the invention of agriculture.

Z: The problem is that anthropogenic warming is expected to continue.

U.S. Global Change Research Program: Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.

Z: An increase of 2-4°C will have a profound impact on human civilization.

NASA: "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time."