New study confirms - No "pause" in global warming

Mann et. al. were dishonest. You are being too kind.

 

IMO, this issue shows the corruption of human beings, regardless of what label they put on themselves. 'Scientist' is one such label, & it attempts to portray some kind of superhuman reasoning & intelligence, but underneath, these people are just like anyone else, with an agenda, with egos & self-importance driving their words & actions, & corrupted by money & the lure of fame.

Those who worship at the altar of 'Scientists!' will be disappointed, & discover they have been duped by manipulating fools.

But, those who respect & employ the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, will find a useful tool in determining Facts & Truth. A little skepticism, with a big dose of scientific methodology, goes a long way toward weeding out the lies from within the propaganda.

Phony, pseudo science is so prevalent, & all kinds of cockamamie notions are pitched as 'Science!', when they are nothing but wild speculations, filled with assumptions & conjecture. If the Age of Reason & the birth of Science was a couple of hundred years ago, we have left that mindset. We live in an age of anti-science, where decrees & mandates replace scientific methodology. We are in the Age of Madness, where folly replaces common sense, imperial decrees replace scientific methodology, & conformity replaces inquiry & skepticism.

It is a brave new world, what the new progressive elite are creating. I hope everyone enjoys it.

 

Oh, my bad, I apologize ... The link to your book is broken. Does this book you are going to link to dispute the findings of Assessing recent warming using instrumentally homogeneous sea surface temperature records - Zeke Hausfather et. al.?

As any honest person would agree, there is a huge difference between ignoring something presented and not having evidence presented in the first place. Honest and intelligent debaters readily see this distinction.

 

No, the book does not.

 

The point is very simple: you are ignoring the relevant facts, and demanding an absurd standard of evidence that you cannot meet yourself.

I.e., altered to agree with AGW theory.

I.e., it provides a plausible but ultimately circular rationalization for them.

Because it is being done by people who advocate AGW hysteria, and -- shocker! -- ends up supporting that hysteria.

When every homogenization, weighting, averaging, smoothing, correcting, etc. somehow makes current temperatures higher and earlier temperatures lower, and I can see for myself that temperatures haven't changed in 18 years, that tells me it is being done with a preconceived outcome in mind. Plus the sheer weight of the AGW propaganda effort in the MSM tells me it cannot be honest, though it is certainly very well funded.

Wrong. Unlike AGW screamers, I don't think repetition adds evidence.

Killed by one big El Nino that only looks like a record because of rampant alteration of temperature data to match AGW theory?? Don't think so...

 

If you "revise" the data enough, then you get what you want.

 

So there has been a correction to ship intake data which always reads high temperature and that has resulted in higher global average temperatures. How does that work ??

 

Wrong, the adjustment corrected buoy data to more closely reflect ship intake data. The Argo buoys, designed for recording ocean temperatures, did not show warming so Karl et. al. corrected that.

 

Wow, I didn't understand that. That's even worse - combining good data with bad data to get bad data. I'm sure they called that homogenization ??

 

Who knows? Warmists always have an excuse for "revising" data to support the warmist agenda.

In science, the data leads the science. In global warming, the warmists agenda creates the data.

 

I see a lot of delusional denier cult myths with no scientific support....as usual.

In the real world....16 of the 17 hottest years on record globally have happened since 2001.....THAT is the actual science here.....just who is idiotic enough to see a 'pause' in that record?

NASA, NOAA Data Show 2016 Warmest Year on Record Globally
NASA
Earth’s 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.


The planet’s long-term warming trend is seen in this chart of every year’s annual temperature cycle from 1880 to the present, compared to the average temperature from 1980 to 2015. Record warm years are listed in the column on the right.
- Credits: NASA/Joshua Stevens, Earth Observatory

The 2016 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2016 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty.

“2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “We don’t expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear.”

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year – from January through September, with the exception of June -- were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record -- in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.

 

This ^^ is meaningless. Very few dispute the fact that the globe is warming.

 

Nope! The bogus nonsense and denier cult lies you post are what is "meaningless" here.

Scientific research from NASA is never meaningless. You just are incapable of comprehending it.....or accepting it, due to your crackpot political ideologies that have nothing to do with science.