Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Again, I took climitology and meterology in college and know how very complex the systems are to begin with, but posting climite varations year to year for different reasons, such as La Niña which cools the oceans or El Niño which warms them and understanding the effects on the upper atmophere. AS well as the entire temp of the earth is warming. But it goes up and down due to varations in the system, even though the trend is warming.

Congratulations for taking courses. One would think that would allow you to actually discuss the research rather than quote mine.

Now, what is an upward trend? In this case, it means a fairly steady linear (but not perfectly linear) increase. Only we don't see that. What we see is essentially over a decade of a constant average temperature. Under what definition of "trend" is that a warming trend?

 

[work in progress]

Actually the satellite data is the most accurate. They don't measure temperature directly, which allow non-local readings. In other words, a thermometer is sensitive to the temperature around it. However, MSUs measure temperature dependent elements (flux in the intensity of emitted radiation of oxygen), which means that they aren't sensitive to local changes but are capable of global readings in a way no other data set is. Also, AGW theory predicts that the greatest warming should occur in the lower troposphere, which only satellites and things like weather ballons are capable of meausring.

Okay, here's something new from NASA, courtesy my rss feed from Climate Progress:
NASA: Human Activity, Not Solar Activity, Drives Global Warming and Returning to 350 ppm Is Needed to Stop It

A few years ago, I used to hear a lot of theories about how the Sun was causing global warming, not human activity...and the Mini Ice Age of Renaissance Europe was frequently cited. I have noticed that nobody on the denying side has had much to say about the Sun in recent years after we went through an unusually long period of low solar activity, as noted in that graph. But nevertheless, the ocean temperatures measured by those Argo floats continued to show rising temperatures, and of course the CO2 rates have been climbing at an accelerating rate of increase (the story that desperately needs more attention). In fact, the portion of the NASA statement that concurs with Bill McKibben's principle that CO2 rates need to be brought down below 350 as quickly as possible is slightly out of date already! They state that the present CO2 levels are 392ppm., while a quick check at CO2now.org reveals that the latest measurements from Mauna Loa is 393.09

Methane is a "stronger" GHG but according to AGW it's not a big concern. CO2 is. And it isn't that they won't result in increasing temperatures (although some research suggests that the climate adjusts naturally to maintain equilibrium, which I don't find convincing). The issue is that the climate is dominated much more by water vapor and clouds. However, AGW predicts that the increases in CO2 cause changes in these which causes dangerous warming. In other words, nobody thinks that the direct effect of CO2 as a GHG is a big deal. It's what CO2 will do to other atmospheric elements (water vapor) which are much more primary when it comes to global temperature. However, the reason for positing these positive feedback mechanisms is mainly because our models can't account for the warming without them.

Well, first, another recent entry at Climate Progress directs us to yet another new finding that natural gas isn't as clean as proponents contend in public:
Bombshell Study: High Methane Emissions Measured Over Gas Field “May Offset Climate Benefits of Natural Gas”

The problems with "fugitive" methane leaks from natural gas wellheads and pipelines is even more ominous now that the U.S. (and the whole world for that matter) has gone fracking crazy! I recently listened to an episode of the RadioEcoshock podcast, and learned that Nebraska State Republicans won't let the EPA include any atmospheric data in their studies on groundwater and soil contamination from fracking, that are being discussed at legislative hearings about the expansion of fracking. To make a long story short, all of the rapid increase in gas exploitation is going to increase methane levels many times over in the coming years.

And seriously, why are you telling me that it's the water vapour, not the CO2 that's the problem. This is meaningless, since a warmer atmosphere means more water vapour is taken up. The general rule I've been told is that each one degree increase in global average temperatures means a 7% increase in atmospheric moisture levels.

Quite true. But there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between the amount of CO2 we emit and the amount in the atmosphere. At times when CO2 emissions have increased, the content hasn't. We don't fully understand the CO2 cycle, from absorbtion to it's role in temperature.

Well, the first and most obvious reason is that it depends on how much of the carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the world's oceans. The number I have heard many times is that about half of the carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere has ended up in the world's oceans. And the amount of carbon sea water can absorb depends largely on temperatures (just like oxygen levels), so as oceans warm, we can expect that they will reach a limit and be unable to absorb anymore...according to some of the oceanographers. What happens if a limit is reached would be a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 rise.

Nevertheless, we are still saddled with the problem that carbon in the oceans have made the waters more acidic, and more friendly for microbial life and less friendly for ocean plants and animals. I've noticed that more and more paleontologists are finding their way to the same conclusions that Peter D. Ward first advanced several years ago about the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when the oceans turned into anoxic swamps with hydrogen sulfide-producing bacteria. This is the direction that the World's oceans are heading towards now with their rapid uptake of carbon and decrease in oxygen levels:
Global Extinction: Gradual Doom Is Just as Bad as Abrupthttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120203113308.htm
ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2012)

Again, though, it is very important to understand that none of the models predict this increase because of the GHG role of CO2. That's rather small. The reason for those 4 to 6 degree increases are because of the feedback parameter.

Whether the models are predicting it or not seems immaterial, if there is expected to be a continuous increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the future. The problem is more likely that the models once again refrain from looking too far ahead into the future, and the problem that they continually underestimate positive feedback effects in their future projections.

 

[work in progress]

Actually mammals flourished just fine during the Mesozoic... in fact they had greater overall diversity before the end of Cretaceous than after. Some even hunted small dinosaurs.

Today we only have three orders of mammals left (one of which only has three species left), there were at least five during the time of the dinosaurs.

It's a common misconception that mammals were stuck in some sort of limbo until the dinosaurs died out.

Maybe it depends on what sort of measuring is used, because regardless of whether there were more orders of mammals during the Mesozoic, they appear to have been mostly small, niche dwellers, living in the shadows of the reptiles who flourished and moved into the seas, all the land habitats and even in the air with flying reptiles. Most paleontologists I read just took this as a given that reptiles were dominant, and prevented mammals from expanding out of their niches of mostly small, burrowing rodents hiding underground. It wasn't until the Terrible Reptiles were gone that the mammals were able to expand their domain in a similar way as the reptiles did during the Mesozoic.

Again, the majority of species were thriving... there hadn't been as much diversity among living things since the great Permian die off.
As for ferns and conifers not liking the cold... guess what thrives in the coldest parts of the modern world. (hint: christmas trees don't have flowers)

However, life was thriving in the warmer higher CO2 world for hundreds of millions of years.
If you believe that the biosphere is trying to return to something more stable for the majority than increasing CO2 is the way to go. The majority of life on the planet prefers warmer temperatures. Only the minority of mammals prefer it cold.

Well, the record of the last 14 million years looks like negative feedbacks are trying to pull carbon levels down as low as possible, since present CO2 levels are at a record high. A chart I can't seem to find right now that accompanied a report on a new paleoclimate measuring system, showed that the periods where Co2 levels were at or below 200 were more frequent than anything over 300.

Doubtful... there have been plenty of glacial periods before those during the reign of mammals.

Yes, like the periods called "Snowball Earth" that are becoming generally accepted now. But, again in the earlier ages, life would have had much less reason to encourage carbon sequestration than it does today, so even with periods of glaciation in the distant past, overall greenhouse gas levels were likely much higher than today, now that we receive much more energy from the Sun.

Warmer surface waters are also needed to drive the global oceanic currents. The fact that the poles get 24 hour sunlight makes them green with algae and plankton, not the cold.

Tropical waters are going to heat up and keep that thermohaline circulation going. But, the point is that the warmer surface ocean waters have lost both nutrients and oxygen as they move north, and are replenished with both by the cold Arctic waters. During periods when the Earth is too warm, the circulation declines, and contributes to the other anoxic effects of global warming. If all the sea creatures had a vote, they would try to keep temperatures as low as possible.

Again, the warmest period in Earths history was in the Eocene... well after the dinosaurs and well after the angiosperms arrived. Most of the warm and cold cycles are driven by the fact that the Earth wobbles in it's orbit, not because of anything done by living things.

wa:do

Refreshing my recollections on Earth history, it is only partially true that the Eocene was a time of great warming, since there were also periods of cooling:

Following the maximum (PETM), was a descent into an icehouse climate from the Eocene Optimum to the Eocene-Oligocene transition at 34 million years ago. During this decrease ice began to reappear at the poles, and the Eocene-Oligocene transition is the period of time where the Antarctic ice sheet began to rapidly expand.​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Okay, here's something new from NASA, courtesy
I have noticed that nobody on the denying side has had much to say about the Sun in recent years after we went through an unusually long period of low solar activity, as noted in that graph.

Actually they have:
Jager, de C. (2008). Solar activity and its influence on climate. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 87(3)

Lu, Q-B. (2010). Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Physics Reports 487

Erlykin, A.D.., Sloan, T., & Wolfende, A.W. (2010). Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays, and solar irradiation over the Earth. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72

Svensmark, H., Bondo, T., & Svensmark, J. (2009). Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aeosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36

Mouël, J-l., Kossobokov, V., &Courtillot, V. (2010). A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72

Kirby, J. (2007). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28

Veizer, J. (2005). "Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle. Geoscience Canada 32(1)


I could go on, but the point is that the relationship between the AGW warming period and the sun isn't settled. Also, most of the research concerns not the direct effect of the suns infrared energy, but of fluctuations of its gravitational field.

Well, first, another recent entry at Climate Progress directs us to yet another new finding that natural gas isn't as clean as proponents contend in public:
Bombshell Study: High Methane Emissions Measured Over Gas Field “May Offset Climate Benefits of Natural Gas”

Methane isn't really the concern. You have to take into account atmospheric lifespan. According to AGW, the thing that we really need to worry about is CO2.

And seriously, why are you telling me that it's the water vapour, not the CO2 that's the problem. This is meaningless, since a warmer atmosphere means more water vapour is taken up. The general rule I've been told is that each one degree increase in global average temperatures means a 7% increase in atmospheric moisture levels.

No, that's what mainstream science is telling you. Water vapor is the dominant GHG. CO2 is a trace element, and and its increase accounts (by itself) for very little of the observed or predicted temperature rise. However, AGW theory holds that this increase causes reactions within the overall climate system: changes in clouds, precipitation, water vapor, etc. These changes are believed to be positive feedbacks. That is, the increase in CO2 causes other changes which further increase the temperature.

Whether the models are predicting it or not seems immaterial, if there is expected to be a continuous increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the future.

What matters is the feedback parameter. If we only had to worry about the direct effect of the emission of infrared enegery from atmospheric CO2, we wouldn't be worried (at least in terms of temperature.

 

[shawn001]

Okay, here's something new from NASA, courtesy my rss feed from Climate Progress:
NASA: Human Activity, Not Solar Activity, Drives Global Warming and Returning to 350 ppm Is Needed to Stop It

A few years ago, I used to hear a lot of theories about how the Sun was causing global warming, not human activity...and the Mini Ice Age of Renaissance Europe was frequently cited. I have noticed that nobody on the denying side has had much to say about the Sun in recent years after we went through an unusually long period of low solar activity, as noted in that graph. But nevertheless, the ocean temperatures measured by those Argo floats continued to show rising temperatures, and of course the CO2 rates have been climbing at an accelerating rate of increase (the story that desperately needs more attention). In fact, the portion of the NASA statement that concurs with Bill McKibben's principle that CO2 rates need to be brought down below 350 as quickly as possible is slightly out of date already! They state that the present CO2 levels are 392ppm., while a quick check at CO2now.org reveals that the latest measurements from Mauna Loa is 393.09


Well, first, another recent entry at Climate Progress directs us to yet another new finding that natural gas isn't as clean as proponents contend in public:
Bombshell Study: High Methane Emissions Measured Over Gas Field “May Offset Climate Benefits of Natural Gas”


And seriously, why are you telling me that it's the water vapour, not the CO2 that's the problem. This is meaningless, since a warmer atmosphere means more water vapour is taken up. The general rule I've been told is that each one degree increase in global average temperatures means a 7% increase in atmospheric moisture levels.


Well, the first and most obvious reason is that it depends on how much of the carbon dioxide is being absorbed into the world's oceans. The number I have heard many times is that about half of the carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere has ended up in the world's oceans. And the amount of carbon sea water can absorb depends largely on temperatures (just like oxygen levels), so as oceans warm, we can expect that they will reach a limit and be unable to absorb anymore...according to some of the oceanographers. What happens if a limit is reached would be a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 rise.

Nevertheless, we are still saddled with the problem that carbon in the oceans have made the waters more acidic, and more friendly for microbial life and less friendly for ocean plants and animals. I've noticed that more and more paleontologists are finding their way to the same conclusions that Peter D. Ward first advanced several years ago about the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when the oceans turned into anoxic swamps with hydrogen sulfide-producing bacteria. This is the direction that the World's oceans are heading towards now with their rapid uptake of carbon and decrease in oxygen levels:
Global Extinction: Gradual Doom Is Just as Bad as Abrupt
ScienceDaily (Feb. 3, 2012)


Whether the models are predicting it or not seems immaterial, if there is expected to be a continuous increase in greenhouse gas emissions into the future. The problem is more likely that the models once again refrain from looking too far ahead into the future, and the problem that they continually underestimate positive feedback effects in their future projections.

You know work in progress, I posted the above link to that graph three times now and LegionOnomaMoi ignore it and I quess that was a quote mine.

"And seriously, why are you telling me that it's the water vapour"

Because that WAS a hypothesis from a study. Proven wrong. The person doesn't believe man is contributing.

The earth is trapping more heat then it is releasing back into space.

As for methane the artic tundras are melting and releasing more into the atmophere.

A big problem with Natural gas is the fracking method of retreiving it for one. On a local pollution scale.

What LegionOnomaMoi is doing is cherry picking or misrepresenting the data and really doesn't understand it despite thinking the opposite.


Peter Gleick, Contributor
CEO Pacific Institute, MacArthur Fellow, National Academy of Sciences
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

2012

"
“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”


I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming – an observation noted by every climate research institution tracking temperatures, the US National Academy of Sciences (over and over and over), every other national academy of sciences on the planet, and every professional society in the geosciences.

"What about the last decade, as claimed above? The linear trend (the blue line) over the past decade is relatively flat, but in fact it still exhibited a warming trend, despite the temporary cooling forces that are masking the overall warming. As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: “what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.”

"What about the last 15 years? This claim, too, is false, in two important ways: First, it actually has warmed over the past 15 years, and second, the past 15 years are themselves among the warmest in the past 130 years."

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data - Forbes


The oceans are absorbing the C02 and we are having:

The recent La Niña is one of the strongest since climatologists began recording the phenomenon 50 years ago.

Long La Niña Finally Winding Down - Yahoo! News

Which effects the atmophere. The depletion of the ozone layer also effects the stratosphere.

John Christy had problems with the data analysis in the past as well in 1992.


"Actually the satellite data is the most accurate. They don't measure temperature directly, which allow non-local readings. In other words, a thermometer is sensitive to the temperature around it"

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming


"revealed errors in the way satellite data had been collected and interpreted. For instance, the orbit of satellites gradually slows, which has to be taken into account because it affects the time of day at which temperature recording are taken. This problem was always recognised, but the corrections were given the wrong sign (negative instead positive and vice versa)."

looked at the weather balloon data. Measurements of the air temperature during the day can be skewed if the instruments are heated by sunlight. Over the years the makers of weather balloons had come up with better methods of preventing or correcting for this effect, but because no one had taken these improvements into account, the more accurate measurements appeared to show daytime temperatures getting cooler.

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist


Work in progress the below link goes into a lot of what your discussing here.
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo — 18 January 2012

"The year 2011 is the 9th warmest in the GISS analysis. Nine of the ten warmest years are in the 21st century, the only exception being 1998, which was warmed by the strongest El Niño of the past century. "

Summary

2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2011 Annual Analysis

 

[shawn001]

Also of note work in progress on the UAH data for you to check out, because of the information there on satellites and how they measured the temps.

Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data

January 2012

Skepticism About Lower Atmosphere Temperature Data

 

[painted wolf]

Maybe it depends on what sort of measuring is used, because regardless of whether there were more orders of mammals during the Mesozoic, they appear to have been mostly small, niche dwellers, living in the shadows of the reptiles who flourished and moved into the seas, all the land habitats and even in the air with flying reptiles. Most paleontologists I read just took this as a given that reptiles were dominant, and prevented mammals from expanding out of their niches of mostly small, burrowing rodents hiding underground. It wasn't until the Terrible Reptiles were gone that the mammals were able to expand their domain in a similar way as the reptiles did during the Mesozoic.

Actually the more we learn about mesozoic mammals the less that old view holds sway.
As I said, they occupied a wide diversity of habitats and niches... They glided between the trees, swam in the rivers and lakes, burrowed in the earth and even hunted small dinosaurs. The idea that they were restricted to "small burrowing rodents hiding underground" is as inaccurate as the swamp-dwelling, muck-eating brontosaurus.

"living in the shadows" is an outdated view... they simply didn't occupy any of the large animal niches. At least not that we know of, but they did get a lot bigger than people usually realize... at least as large as badgers.

No one argues that the African Honey Badger is dominated by Lions, despite their being smaller.

The only important measures are diversity and abundance.... mammals had higher diversity and arguably equal abundance. Don't let the absence of elephants fool you into thinking that mammals were somehow under performing.

Well, the record of the last 14 million years looks like negative feedbacks are trying to pull carbon levels down as low as possible, since present CO2 levels are at a record high. A chart I can't seem to find right now that accompanied a report on a new paleoclimate measuring system, showed that the periods where Co2 levels were at or below 200 were more frequent than anything over 300.

And if you want to kill the plants off that is a great plan... It may help explain the vast plant-less deserts despite the presence of C4 angiosperm plants.

Yes, like the periods called "Snowball Earth" that are becoming generally accepted now. But, again in the earlier ages, life would have had much less reason to encourage carbon sequestration than it does today, so even with periods of glaciation in the distant past, overall greenhouse gas levels were likely much higher than today, now that we receive much more energy from the Sun.

Glaciers covered significant parts of the world during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian as well. Just like the glacial cycle we are in today.

Why exactly would life have less reason to encourage carbon sequestration than it does today?

Tropical waters are going to heat up and keep that thermohaline circulation going.

Not according to some models... which have the currents stalling and making things worse.
Shutdown of thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, the point is that the warmer surface ocean waters have lost both nutrients and oxygen as they move north, and are replenished with both by the cold Arctic waters. During periods when the Earth is too warm, the circulation declines, and contributes to the other anoxic effects of global warming. If all the sea creatures had a vote, they would try to keep temperatures as low as possible.

"as low as possible" is a gross overstatement. Most aquatic life prefers warmer waters of the tropics to the cold waters of the poles. Even giant whales need warmer waters to reproduce. You need a diversity of environments for life to flourish. Too cold is just as bad as too warm.

Refreshing my recollections on Earth history, it is only partially true that the Eocene was a time of great warming, since there were also periods of cooling:

Following the maximum (PETM), was a descent into an icehouse climate from the Eocene Optimum to the Eocene-Oligocene transition at 34 million years ago. During this decrease ice began to reappear at the poles, and the Eocene-Oligocene transition is the period of time where the Antarctic ice sheet began to rapidly expand.​

Naturally, after the thermal maximum temperatures started to go down... otherwise it wouldn't have been the thermal maximum, it would be the current temperature.
I don't see how that is relevant. The age of mammals and angiosperms still saw the fastest and highest rise in temperatures on Earth. Which is contrary to any idea that they were somehow trying to cool the planet off or balance it in any way.

Milankovitch cycles have more impact than anything plants or animals could ever do. (except arguably humanity by our altering the atmosphere, hydrology and groundcover)

wa:do

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi ignore it and I quess that was a quote mine.

Perhaps that's because the influence of the sun I'm referring to has nothing to do with irradiance, and that's what the graph speaks to.

Because that WAS a hypothesis from a study.

No. The CURRENT mainstream hypothesis is that what would be, on its own, a small and untroublesome rise in temperature from human emissions is greatly amplified by the reaction of this rise with other atmospheric elements such as water vapor and clouds.

What LegionOnomaMoi is doing is cherry picking or misrepresenting the data and really doesn't understand it despite thinking the opposite.

So far (of the two of us) I'm the only one who has provided actual research. Full papers. So far I'm only one who has discussed the science rather than just quote mine

I've stated that there is no warming trend (meaning no statistically significant rise in temperature, especially given the margin of error) for the past 10+. Instead of quote mining, can you point to a single research papaer which states that there has been a statistically significant warming trend over the past 10+ years?

Peter Gleick, Contributor
CEO Pacific Institute, MacArthur Fellow, National Academy of Sciences
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

Interesting you talk about manipulating the science. Let's look at what some of most influential AGW proponents among climate scientists say in their own words:

Michael Mann, along with two other researchers, published two proxy data sets (the famous hockey stick graph) in 98 and 99. Together their work is referred to as MBH, or sometimes seperately as MBH98 and MBH99. They passed through peer-review and were published, and touted everywhere. Then a nobody from canada started looking at the data, and asking questions.

Tom Wigley, and strong AGW proponent and former CRU director said in a private email that "At the very least MBH is a very sloppy piece of work-an opinion I have held for some time." Of course, did he ever say so publicly? No. Of course not. Because it was a huge media sensation and great PR for AGW proponents.

Heck, forget "cherry-picking" data. How about just hiding it? When Warwick Hughes asked Phil Jones for his data, Jones responded "Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?" Rather an odd stance for a scientist, given that good scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong. That's the scientific method.

Or how about environmental bias? Michael Mann talks about several journals which should be blackballed, one because he claims it is "being run by the baddie--only a shill for the industry..."

When the peer-reviewed journal GRL published one too many papers casting doubt on mainstream AGW theory, Mann states "It's one thing to lose "Climate Research" [they had already blackballed that journal]. We can't afford to lose GRL."

Tom Wigley's response: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

Phil Jones, once discussions of FOI requests begins, states that those in the UK "have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."

Oh, and by the way, about your denial that there's no warming trend in the past 10+ years? Lead scientist and AGW theory proponent Trenberth states in Oct of 2009 "That fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can't." Of course, now we have some explanations. Are they accurate? Maybe. Did the models predict this trend? No. Not at all.

But Phil Jones isn't political. He says so himself: "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see climate change happen, so that the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. "

And what happens when data is questioned? How do these scientists handle criticism? Trenberth: "the response should be to try to somehow label these guys as lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct a database."

But he doesn't end there: "So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in counter rhetoric."
Talk about objective science!

I could go on, but I just wanted to make the point, once again, that these kinds of accusations go both ways.

“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”


I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. These statements are scurrilous deceptions and falsehoods. The planet is warming

I never said the planet wasn't warming. I know it is. What I said was that there is no recent warming trend in the data sets, and there hasn't been for 10+ years. No trend in the data doesn't mean global warming stopped, or never existed, or that the world isn't warming. It just means that the average temperature hasn't increased in the past 10+ years. Look at Trenberth's comment above. Or look at the raw data. Use the data points on the GISS graph I gave you to create a regression line (they didn't provide one, because if they did you wouln't see any trend).

John Christy had problems with the data analysis in the past as well in 1992.

That's true. I already noted that. And every time he or spence or someone else points out an error, they fix the data set. But guess what? Somehow ALL the adjustments push the AGW period temperature up. How likely is it that various problems of different sorts would all cause systematic errors in the same directioni? But no one is looking to see if there might be errors which cause them to be to high.

Climate myths: The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

The question is not whether it is cooling but why the data doesn't match the AGW theory, which states that we should see greater warming in the lower troposphere than the surface, not the same or less: A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology (2008)

Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements Geophysical Research Letters 2007


And so on. I'd cite more, but you won't read them anyway.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

Any idea on recent published research on the biases in these records do to surface processes?

The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years.

Basically, "Our models didn't predict this lack of a trend, so now we are trying to figure out why we were wrong. Here's our current theory."

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Also of note work in progress on the UAH data for you to check out, because of the information there on satellites and how they measured the temps.

Funny how Hansen, who works for NASA, prefers surface temperature data...

Surface processes increase the surface temperature and therefore the surface temperature record. Everybody (well climate scientists anyway) knows this. Here's a recent paper from the International Journal of Climatology on it (and if you say "that's just a single paper" then I'll get you more).

None of the data sets are perfect. However, AGW theory predicts that the most warming shouldn't be on the surface. Satellites can, unlike other instruments, measure both the temperature of the lower troposphere and that are not biased by local temperature readings like other instruments.

 

[shawn001]

State of the Climate
Global Analysis
Annual 2011

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Climatic Data Center



State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2011

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

State of the Climate
Global Analysis
Annual 2011

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Climatic Data Center



State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2011

Not long ago you were all about getting into the politics. I give you the words of lead AGW theor proponents out of their own mouths and no response at all? No explanation for why what they said doesn't constitute bias and a distortion of the scientific method?

 

[shawn001]

First

"Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Physics Reports 487"


It's CFCs
"The observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming... The total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000. Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped." (Qing-Bin Lu)

What the science says...

Models and direct observations find that CFCs only contribute a fraction of the warming supplied by other greenhouse gases.

It's CFCs


"Tom Wigley, and strong AGW proponent and former CRU director"

"With the two influences removed, he says, "the overall record is more consistent with our current knowledge, which suggests that both natural and anthropogenic influences on climate are important and that anthropogenic influences have become more substantial in recent decades."

"In the unadjusted temperature record, the warming trend during the past two decades is similar in intensity to the warming that occurred from 1910 to 1940. However, "when [El Niño–Southern Oscillation] and volcanic effects are removed," writes Wigley, "the recent warming trend increases to 0.25° Celsius [from 0.18° C] per decade and becomes highly significant compared to the earlier period." The overall result is a long-term warming trend that intensifies by century's end, in sync with increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

Tom Wigley


"When Warwick Hughes asked Phil Jones for his data, Jones responded "Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?" Rather an odd stance for a scientist, given that good scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong. That's the scientific method."

Warwick Hughes "free lance science researcher"?

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.

yes I know this whole story, so don't bother.

US and British scientists were cleared of any wrong doing.
'Climategate' Investigation Clears U.S. Scientists


#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}

'Climategate' Investigation Clears U.S. Scientists

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

First

"Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Physics Reports 487"

Let's quote a more relevent part of the paper:
"These data strongly indicate that global temperature has been dominantly controlled by the level of CFCs, modulated by the CR-driven ozone depletion over the past century. ...The observed data from 1850 up to the present, as shown in Figs. 21 and 22, indicate that CFCs conspiring with CRs are the major culprits for not only atmospheric ozone depletion but also global warming. The CRE-driven ozone depletion is expected to decrease after 2010 due to the CR cycles, but the EESC will keep decreasing, as shown in Fig. 22(b). If the above observation is confirmed, then we expect to observe a continued decrease in global surface temperature—“global cooling”. That is, global warming observed in the late 20th century may be reversed with the coming decades. Indeed, global cooling may have started since 2002, according to the observed data shown in Figs. 21 and 22. This could be very important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. It certainly deserves further examination and study." p. 163
[italics in original, emphases added]

What the science says...

No, that's what a website says. Not science.


What I provided was science. It was a peer-reviewed research study published in a scientific journal in 2010. What you did if find a website which says differently. Anybody can link to websites. I could find lots of websites stating that the earth hasn't warmed, or that evolution doesn't exist. They'd be wrong. But I didn't do that. I cited a scientific research paper published in a scientific and peer-reviewed journal.

And actually, I cited many research papers there, you chose one (I don't know why you chose that one).

"Tom Wigley, and strong AGW proponent and former CRU director"

"With the two influences removed, he says, "the overall record is more consistent with our current knowledge, which suggests that both natural and anthropogenic influences on climate are important and that anthropogenic influences have become more substantial in recent decades."

That's what he said publicly. What he said privately in 2009 was that they couldn't account for the lack of warming. Did he believe that the warming should be there? Of course. And shortly after the hacked emails were available several studies were published which explained why we don't see the trend. Maybe they're right. But my real concern is that we shouldn't be explaining current trends in retrospect. The whole point of climate models here is to predict future trends. But the models didn't predict the last 10+ years. They overestimated. So how much faith should we have in them to predict the next 90 years?

"In the unadjusted temperature record, the warming trend during the past two decades is similar in intensity to the warming that occurred from 1910 to 1940. However, "when [El Niño–Southern Oscillation] and volcanic effects are removed," writes Wigley, "the recent warming trend increases to 0.25° Celsius [from 0.18° C] per decade and becomes highly significant compared to the earlier period." The overall result is a long-term warming trend that intensifies by century's end, in sync with increasing emissions of greenhouse gases."

You realize what this means, right? All the data sets are "adjusted." They have to be. The question is are the adjustments accurate. There are several studies which show that the adjusted surface data sets are higher than they should be. And the global temperature record from 1910 to 1940 is pretty poor (no satellites, fewer places with widespread monitering, etc.) So all of this involves not only a rather large margin of errors, but alot of assumptions, many of which are contradicted by other scientific research.

"When Warwick Hughes asked Phil Jones for his data, Jones responded "Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try to find something wrong with it?" Rather an odd stance for a scientist, given that good scientists are trying to prove themselves wrong. That's the scientific method."

Warwick Hughes "free lance science researcher"?

Who cares? McIntyre was a "free lance researcher" who has publised more than one study in respected (and non-respected) journals and was asked by the IPCC to consult on both the AR4 and the current IPCC report (although according to him, the IPCC is ignoring what he says and his invitation was just an attempt to appear unbiased). The point is, that data like climate data should be available to anyone. If there is a reason not to make it available, that reason should absolutely not be because the scientist doesn't want someone to find problems in her or his work.

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.

yes I know this whole story, so don't bother.

I doubt it. I'm sure you read a synopsis of the inquiries and have read some websites defending this or that quote. But have you ever bothered to read the other side?

US and British scientists were cleared of any wrong doing.
'Climategate' Investigation Clears U.S. Scientists

I provided you with a document on the problems with these investigations. You said you would read it. Did you?

Also, you missed a lot of the quotes. It's one thing to be cleared of scientific fraud. It's another thing to indicate a clear bias, something you have been accusing "deniers" of this whole time. Again:

Or how about environmental bias? Michael Mann talks about several journals which should be blackballed, one because he claims it is "being run by the baddie--only a shill for the industry..."

When the peer-reviewed journal GRL published one too many papers casting doubt on mainstream AGW theory, Mann states "It's one thing to lose "Climate Research" [they had already blackballed that journal]. We can't afford to lose GRL."

Phil Jones: "As you know, I'm not political. If anything, I would like to see climate change happen, so that the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. "
Also, once discussions of FOI requests begins, states that those in the UK "have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."


Tom Wigley: "If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." How are such actions not an attempt to control the research?




Trenberth (when discussing how to handle criticisms of the data sets from "deniers"): "the response should be to try to somehow label these guys as lazy and incompetent and unable to do the huge amount of work it takes to construct a database...So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in counter rhetoric."

It goes on. It doesn't even matter if the inquiries were conducted thoroughly and professionally (they weren't, by the way, at least not thoroughly. They didn't interview the people whom the emails were about). The point is that while you've been so quick to accuse "deniers" as biased, the emails clearly indicate that so are proponants. In fact, the last quote was a scientist who suggested that instead of attacking the scientific critiques they attack the character of the researchers.

Again, for just about any claim within mainstream AGW theory, I can find recent, scientific and peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals with results which contradict these claims. Does it make them correct? No. Are there responses to most, if not all, of these papers which are also published in journals? Yes. But to claim the science is settled when peer-reviewed studies continue to be published in reputable journals (especially by running to quote mine some website) is anything but scientific.

 

[work in progress]

Actually they have:
Jager, de C. (2008). Solar activity and its influence on climate. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 87(3)

Lu, Q-B. (2010). Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Physics Reports 487

Erlykin, A.D.., Sloan, T., & Wolfende, A.W. (2010). Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays, and solar irradiation over the Earth. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72

Svensmark, H., Bondo, T., & Svensmark, J. (2009). Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aeosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36

Mouël, J-l., Kossobokov, V., &Courtillot, V. (2010). A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72

Kirby, J. (2007). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28

Veizer, J. (2005). "Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle. Geoscience Canada 32(1)


I could go on, but the point is that the relationship between the AGW warming period and the sun isn't settled. Also, most of the research concerns not the direct effect of the suns infrared energy, but of fluctuations of its gravitational field.

And I could ask what I'm I supposed to do with these titles, since there are no links, or more importantly -- something...anything that explains why temperatures have continued increasing, as well as sea ice continuing to decline in the Arctic Ocean, if the Sun or cosmic rays plays a significant factor in climate change? On that topic, paleoclimate research should have shown some dramatic climate changes in the past during the periods when the magnetic poles declined and switched polarity. That would be the periods which would have had the greatest amount of cosmic rays and solar wind particles to affect the atmosphere.

Methane isn't really the concern. You have to take into account atmospheric lifespan. According to AGW, the thing that we really need to worry about is CO2.

If we are constantly adding more methane to the atmosphere through leaky natural gas pipelines, and fugitive gas leaks from fracking operations, along with methane release from a melting Arctic, it becomes a big concern.

No, that's what mainstream science is telling you. Water vapor is the dominant GHG. CO2 is a trace element, and and its increase accounts (by itself) for very little of the observed or predicted temperature rise. However, AGW theory holds that this increase causes reactions within the overall climate system: changes in clouds, precipitation, water vapor, etc. These changes are believed to be positive feedbacks. That is, the increase in CO2 causes other changes which further increase the temperature.

I still don't see how the effects of water vapour can be dealt with other than by reducing the other greenhouse gases! As long as the Earth has oceans, the moisture content of the atmosphere will depend on what the air temperature is. The only way to reduce water vapour, is to reduce atmospheric temperatures; and to do that, we have to bring down CO2 and methane levels.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

And I could ask what I'm I supposed to do with these titles, since there are no links, or more importantly -- something...anything that explains why temperatures have continued increasing

Here you go:
Jager, de C. (2008). Solar activity and its influence on climate. Netherlands Journal of Geosciences 87(3)

Lu, Q-B. (2010). Cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces: Implications for atmospheric ozone depletion and global climate change. Physics Reports 487

Erlykin, A.D.., Sloan, T., & Wolfende, A.W. (2010). Correlations of clouds, cosmic rays, and solar irradiation over the Earth. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72

Svensmark, H., Bondo, T., & Svensmark, J. (2009). Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds. Geophysical Research Letters 36

Mouël, J-l., Kossobokov, V., &Courtillot, V. (2010). A solar pattern in the longest temperature series from three stations in Europe. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 72

Kirby, J. (2007). Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28

Veizer, J. (2005). Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle. Geoscience Canada 32(1)

I still don't see how the effects of water vapour can be dealt with other than by reducing the other greenhouse gases!

The dangerous effects depend on the accuracy of the positive feedback parameter, which is largely a result of our climate models. But our climate models overestimated the trend over the last 10+ years. So how accurate is our knowledge of the feedback systems? Alternative models have been proposed which find that the net effect is little to negative (negative being good in this context). That's the minority view. The majority view is that they are positive and major. But that ignores a great deal of research (see, e.g., the papers above).

 

[work in progress]

You know work in progress, I posted the above link to that graph three times now and LegionOnomaMoi ignore it and I quess that was a quote mine.

"And seriously, why are you telling me that it's the water vapour"

Because that WAS a hypothesis from a study. Proven wrong. The person doesn't believe man is contributing.

The earth is trapping more heat then it is releasing back into space.

As for methane the artic tundras are melting and releasing more into the atmophere.

A big problem with Natural gas is the fracking method of retreiving it for one. On a local pollution scale.

What LegionOnomaMoi is doing is cherry picking or misrepresenting the data and really doesn't understand it despite thinking the opposite.


Peter Gleick, Contributor
CEO Pacific Institute, MacArthur Fellow, National Academy of Sciences
"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

2012

"
“lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”
“The last decades “rate of warming” is flat.”
“Forget global warming…no warming in 15 years.”


I could find a hundred more variations, but you get the idea. .............

Yes, and thanks! I've read some of these links before, but I can get lost or bogged down easily when dragged through debates about graphs, statistics and data sets, and that's why I usually avoid spending too long hashing and rehashing climate models and the merits of surface temp., ocean temp. and satellite data, and go with the bleeding obvious!

For example: if the Earth isn't warming, someone needs to explain to me how we now have a Northwest Passage through the Arctic Islands in the summertime that is navigable by regular ships. There were many explorers who tried and failed to find a Northwest Passage...the British naval officer - John Franklin, died along with his entire crew when they got stuck in the ice up north back in 1850. Until very recent years, the Northwest Passage could only be made during the weeks of late summer, when ice was thinnest, and that could only be done by having several of the largest and heaviest icebreakers leading the convoy.

If anyone cares to look up a controversy of the late 60's which caused a huge rift in U.S./Canadian relations at the time -- the U.S. decided to ignore Canadian territorial sovereignty by sending the "Manhattan" led convoy of empty oil tankers on a successful voyage, but one that was deemed to be too expensive...more costly than just building an oil pipeline through Alaska in fact. Anyway, the point is that under present ice and climate conditions, the Exxon Valdez Disaster would have happened in our territory rather than the Aleutian Islands, if the ice conditions were even close 40 years ago to what they are now. There are many other examples, like the changing growing season maps etc. where denying global warming is equivalent to "Baghdad Bob" denying that the Americans had arrived....as reporters at the press conference could see explosions going off in the background right behind him!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

For example: if the Earth isn't warming

I don't know of any scientist working in fields related to climate chante who argue the earth isn't warming. Those articles (which I've now provided links to) are about the warming being a result of solar/cosmic effects,either in addition to or not primarily becaause of human emissions. Other explanations state that models underestimate natural oscillations, or that we are simply positing a strong feedback parameter because we don't know what else might account for the warming the direct GHG effect of C02 doesn't explain, and so forth. Then there's the possibility (a rather strong one) that our data sets are too inaccurate. This isn't to say the earth isn't warming (it is) but it's a lot easier to say that the current period is exceptional when we don't have very good data sets for the past, and that the surface data underestimates the effect of surface processes which are then attributed to AGW. Again, there is plenty of back and forth on this and the mainstream view is that the current warming period is exceptional and the feedback parameter used in the models is accurate.

 

[work in progress]

Actually the more we learn about mesozoic mammals the less that old view holds sway.........................The only important measures are diversity and abundance.... mammals had higher diversity and arguably equal abundance. Don't let the absence of elephants fool you into thinking that mammals were somehow under performing.

Okay, I guess you weren't as big a dinosaur fan as I was when I was a kid! I had assumed that the way the reptiles of that age moved into every available niche made them the dominant group of animals, but regardless it doesn't have much to do with the topic.

And if you want to kill the plants off that is a great plan... It may help explain the vast plant-less deserts despite the presence of C4 angiosperm plants.

Glaciers covered significant parts of the world during the Late Carboniferous and Early Permian as well. Just like the glacial cycle we are in today.

Why exactly would life have less reason to encourage carbon sequestration than it does today?

The early Permian had a much different climate than it did when the long period of smoldering Siberian Traps brought that era to an end. And, like I said before, if the Sun was cooler in ages past, greenhouse gas levels could be higher without having the same effect on temperatures.

Not according to some models... which have the currents stalling and making things worse.
Shutdown of thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"as low as possible" is a gross overstatement. Most aquatic life prefers warmer waters of the tropics to the cold waters of the poles. Even giant whales need warmer waters to reproduce. You need a diversity of environments for life to flourish. Too cold is just as bad as too warm.

No, most ocean life does not prefer the warm waters, if we use the density of marine life as a guide. Those clear blue Caribbean and Mediterranean waters are so clear because they are comparatively devoid of life compared to Arctic and Antarctic seas. The biggest whales may go to the tropics for reproductive purposes, but where do the Blue Whales and Humpback Whales go to feed?

Naturally, after the thermal maximum temperatures started to go down... otherwise it wouldn't have been the thermal maximum, it would be the current temperature.
I don't see how that is relevant. The age of mammals and angiosperms still saw the fastest and highest rise in temperatures on Earth. Which is contrary to any idea that they were somehow trying to cool the planet off or balance it in any way.

Milankovitch cycles have more impact than anything plants or animals could ever do. (except arguably humanity by our altering the atmosphere, hydrology and groundcover)

wa:do

Going back a couple of years to a NASA lecture (complete with slides) Richard Alley of Penn State, made a pretty compelling case that CO2 levels...not solar cycles or other effects, was the closest correlation with temperature from paleoclimate research. Many of the presumed anomalies of the past, which were trumpeted by groups denying the link, have since been resolved by newer, more accurate measuring methods (Tripati from 2009) and a couple of major anomalies of the distant past were just plain bad data collection and storage. Richard Alley on Earth's Biggest Climate Control Knob

 

[work in progress]

I don't know of any scientist working in fields related to climate chante who argue the earth isn't warming. Those articles (which I've now provided links to) are about the warming being a result of solar/cosmic effects,either in addition to or not primarily becaause of human emissions. Other explanations state that models underestimate natural oscillations, or that we are simply positing a strong feedback parameter because we don't know what else might account for the warming the direct GHG effect of C02 doesn't explain, and so forth. Then there's the possibility (a rather strong one) that our data sets are too inaccurate. This isn't to say the earth isn't warming (it is) but it's a lot easier to say that the current period is exceptional when we don't have very good data sets for the past, and that the surface data underestimates the effect of surface processes which are then attributed to AGW. Again, there is plenty of back and forth on this and the mainstream view is that the current warming period is exceptional and the feedback parameter used in the models is accurate.

I guess it's time to tell Fakelord Monckton to put away his graphs then! Because most of the denial in media is not about what is causing warming, it's about global warming being a hoax.

But, even if warming is caused by the Sun or some other effects, if it's happening, then it is still a threat to agriculture and civilization itself. The need for action would be exactly the same, regardless of the cause. And there still is that other nagging problem of the effects on increased carbon on the world's oceans.

I'll look through the links; but right now they have a problem...considering the low sunspot and solar flare activity until very recently. Carbon levels have been going up each year though. These studies would also have to explain why the warming is only in the lower atmosphere, while the stratosphere is cooling, according to other studies I've been aware of.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Carbon levels have been going up each year though.

Actually atmospheric carbon levels have fluctuated, although the general trend is indeed upward.

considering the low sunspot and solar flare activity until very recently

Most of the studies I'm aware of, especially those which concern the AGW period, have nothing to do with solar flares or sunspots. For example, one main theory is the fluctuations of the Sun's gravitational field which protects the earth from being bombarded with galactic rays is responsible for a large portion (and the primary driver) of current warming (and past cooling) trends. The main idea involves fluctuations in GCRs (resulting from the fluctuations from the sun's gravitational field) cause either a decrease or increase in cloud cover, which is a principal climate forcing.

These studies would also have to explain why the warming is only in the lower atmosphere, while the stratosphere is cooling, according to other studies I've been aware of.

AGW theory predicts that's were the warming should be: the lower troposphere.