you are one of the troll liars who pretend the ocean chart and land chart is relevant to the model charts
Of course they're using ocean temperature records because their predictions of the air temperature records failed miserably. And the ocean temperatures are impossible to determine accurately (and yet the heat content of the ocean is far greater than that of the air).
Nice to see the Duke report. The scientific evidence is steadily mounting against the theory that the earth is in danger.
No the predictions of air temps did not fail miserably, they did not fail at all.
There are many temperature records (estimates of the earth's average air temperature). They can get their predictions to barely stay within the 2SD level by carefully choosing which record to compare with. Of course they use the temperature records which global warming alarmists have full control of, and of course they fiddle with the data to make their case look better.
But it's falling apart. Here's today's news:
Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
The Telegraph, April 25, 2015
But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...o-examine-fiddled-global-warming-figures.html
Now the above is not in the peer reviewed literature, and that's the very good news indeed! Instead, this is dribbling into the news that the public reads. I was shocked yesterday when the standard hourly news feed coming in through my radio mentioned yesterday's Duke report that the IPCC was wrong because it underestimated the natural variability in temperature. This is news that is heard by everyone, not just those of us who follow the subject. Soon enough you'll be hearing the same thing on NPR. Next time you see a poll on how many people are worried about CO2 you can expect that the numbers will set a new low.
The cool thing about all this is that it's shaping up nicely to be a complete scientific scandal that will be hitting the press right about the time that Americans go to vote in the next big national election. LOL! Meanwhile, the latest political news is that Hillary and husband accepted massive bribes from foreign powers and then deleted their emails. It's over. You'll see anti alarmists voted into firm power in house, senate and presidency.
Yessss!! My guess is that they walk these power grabbers and all their alarmist zombies off the back edge of the world. How can we get the money back from Al Gore, the UN, etc.?Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures
Yessss!! My guess is that they walk these power grabbers and all their alarmist zombies off the back edge of the world. How can we get the money back from Al Gore, the UN, etc.?
I tend to be somewhat cynical about the Press, but they have a vicious shark instinct that eventually seems to overcome their political bias. Look at what the NY Times is doing to Hillary. Of course there could be a little Obama vs Clinton going on there but still.
Among my friends, the only ones who still appear to believe the global warming alarm story are the ones who have little to do with science. For years there were several (including one physicist) who put it up constantly on Facebook. They've stopped. I'm sure that their version of history will be that they were simply exhibiting an abundance of caution.
It takes about 5 years to change one of those statements. The brouhaha at the APS continues. Journalists and public employees tend to be leftists and you can expect them to trail the crowd.
The Scientific American is a big supporter of the Alarmist view. Here's their reporting on the APS fight. The alarmists won but only after a fight. This is the beginning of the end for your side:
Physicists battle over the meaning of incontrovertible in global warming fight
April 14, 2015
...
In the spring of 2014, Koonin's drafting committee produced a statement that attributed equal weight to human influences and natural variability as a driver of climate change, according to a source who declined to be named.
...
Koonin quickly lost control of the committee, according to a June POPA meeting's minutes. Elbows came out, and POPA members presented a series of amendments and strong-armed their way into the drafting of the review, according to the minutes.
...
APS will finalize its statement later this year, but for those interested in the power of words—rather than of equations—here are the two statements that catalyzed the physicists' unusually strong reactions.
...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-of-incontrovertible-in-global-warming-fight/
Now the situation is that the POPA is asking for members to comment on the statement but they've made it clear that they will not be paying any attention to those comments. With opinions on global warming slipping towards the cooling, this is sure to cause worse problems for them than the last statement did.
The pace of these changes is slow, but they are steady and they are now against your side. If global warming were gaining adherents among physicists, the fight would have been bigger in 2007 instead of now. The "97% consensus" is simple propaganda.
Hmmm, have your heard of convection?Jerm, the stratosphere is cooling because the increasing greenhouse effect is retaining heat in the troposphere preventing it's release into the stratosphere.
Thus it is additional proof of the increasing greenhouse effect.