Climate Change is here and man made

It simply IS! All of the data sets except for the new NOAA/NCDC data set show a hiatus (with NASA LOTI being the other data set coming closest to not showing a hiatus). I suggest you read this: http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/06/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/

It's interesting, but doesn't really say anything new. The most important aspect of this is that all the data sets are surface temperature, which accounts for a very tiny proportion of the planet's heat sink. Even then, the article shows that the same data could be interpreted in many different ways, with one end of the spectrum being the increase continues unchanged, the other end being that there has been no increase.

One of the grpahs I posted shows deep sea temperatures (where the enormous majority of the globe's heat-mass lies), which show not one tiny bit of a hiatus!

I've been above my average height for the past 540 months. Using your logic that means I am getting taller.

haha! funny! of course you have got taller since you were your average height.
 
Once again you completely ignore the facts and spout more un-informed rubbish due to a lack of basic knowledge on the subject
I've listened to the 'facts' from both sides of the argument. NASA scientists, profs from universities, metrology experts, charity workers in devolving countries, politicians, even Piers Corbyn! The conclusion that I have come to is that man made climate change isn't happening, natural climate change is happening all the time and there's no disputing it.
You're not going to change my opinion just as much as I'm not going to change yours.
 
Not sure how IB?

There is a well-respected school of thought doing the rounds (for quite some time too) that the notion of man-made climate change has been propagated by large US and European multinationals in order to limit and slow the industrial growth of developing nations. This appears to be through a concern of losing market share and influence, sparked by the rise of lower-cost Chinese and Indian products. Ergo, if the developing world can be convinced that they are responsible for polluting the environment, and restrictions can be put in place to limit and control their growth, the established business powers can maintain the status quo to a larger extent than if the developing nations' economies were allowed to grow unchecked. The stronger their economies become, the weaker the established ones will then be.
 
There is a well-respected school of thought doing the rounds (for quite some time too) that the notion of man-made climate change has been propagated by large US and European multinationals in order to limit and slow the industrial growth of developing nations. This appears to be through a concern of losing market share and influence, sparked by the rise of lower-cost Chinese and Indian products. Ergo, if the developing world can be convinced that they are responsible for polluting the environment, and restrictions can be put in place to limit and control their growth, the established business powers can maintain the status quo to a larger extent than if the developing nations' economies were allowed to grow unchecked. The stronger their economies become, the weaker the established ones will then be.

Yes and Africa has been used as a football and strangled to death, literally. All will change on that continent very very soon as the Chinese will make pretty damn sure of that.
 
It's interesting, but doesn't really say anything new.

That's hardly surprsing since there's been no rise in global temperature for around 18 years.

The most important aspect of this is that all the data sets are surface temperature...

No they aren't. NASA GISS data is derived from surface stations combined with satellite data for SSTs.

... which accounts for a very tiny proportion of the planet's heat sink.

Correct. Which is why satellite data is considered the most accurate.

"The strongest evidence for the hiatus comes from the satellite (microwave) observations of bulk atmospheric temperature, pioneered by Christy and Spencer. Analyses of these data have shown a statistically significant hiatus for a period as long as 21 years." - Prof. J. Curry.

And satellite data shows:

monckton1.png



Even then, the article shows that the same data could be interpreted in many different ways, with one end of the spectrum being the increase continues unchanged, the other end being that there has been no increase.

The article does no such thing:

"The bottom line with regards to the hiatus is all of the data sets except for the new NOAA/NCDC data set show a hiatus." Prof. J. Curry.


One of the grpahs I posted shows deep sea temperatures (where the enormous majority of the globe's heat-mass lies), which show not one tiny bit of a hiatus!

You're clutching at straws...

With ocean heat content data before the ARGO era, the measurements are so sparse we are unable “to observe the motions of thermal anomalies in the mid- and high latitude oceans”, and since the introduction of the ARGO floats, there are “issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration”. Phrased other ways: ocean heat content is not a reliable dataset—and—it’s not a dataset in which we should have confidence. - Quotes attributed to Raymond Schmitt of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

haha! funny! of course you have got taller since you were your average height.

Yet I haven't grown at all in the last few years. Hmmm...
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.