Noaa Forms 57 10 10: Fill & Download for Free

For military ships like USS Reuben James (FFG-57) and auxiliary ships like USNS Supply (T-AOE-6) the prefixes are prescribed by law. In the US, other MARAD vessels like NOAAS Thomas Jefferson (S 222) and TS Empire State VI have prefixes that are specified in some government regulation somewhere, probably in the Code of Federal Regulations.For most other vessels, prefixes are more informal and used as a matter of convenience and clarity than as a name. Now I’m sure there’s a tanker somewhere that is actually registered with a “M/T” (for “Motor Tanker”) in its name. Maybe there’s a flag state somewhere where this is common. Maybe there’s a company somewhere that does this as a matter of policy. In general, though, the prefix isn’t part of the name.If I hail someone on bridge-to-bridge radio using a prefix like “Motor Tanker” or “Research Vessel,” the reason is to make it easier for them to grok that I’m actually hailing them. If they put “Motor Tanker” or “Research Vessel” or “Fishing Vessel” on some identifier like their AIS Transponder - it is so that it will be easier for other vessels to understand how they are likely to be operated and where they stand in terms of the Rules of the Road.If you prepend a couple of letters the the beginning of your vessel’s name, and your flag state doesn’t have a problem with it during the registration process, then you’ll probably not ever be hassled about it. If you try to register a 10′ sailboat with a preflx like “USS” or “M/T,” I’d hope that your flag state denies it for the sake of clarity.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the 5 year temp. data is accurate which it is not because of fudged data for the much warmer dirty thirties.This short 5 year weather data is irrelevant noise and of no value in knowing what is happening to the climate. No trend is possible over 5 years and even 100 years is too short.We can illustrate the time scale effect by looking at the data over the following years - 20, 100, 1000 and 7000 60 m. Only the long many centuries shows a recognizable trends WEATHER DATA ONLY MATTERS FOR TRENDS WITH MORE THAN CENTURIES OTHERWISE IT IS SIMPLY UNRELIABLE NOISE.Indeed no doubt the recent claim of global warming revised to climate change as temperatures plunged erred because the scientists were fooled by the randomness of climate history.Further, global temperatures are in a long term decline and 5 years is an irrelevant blip where time is measured in centuries not even decades. We are in an ice age and it would be wonderful if it the temperature was rising but it is not. There are oscillation that do not change the trend line.THE LONGER THE TIME SCALE THE MORE ACCURATE ARE TEMPERATURE TRENDS. SEE 60 MILLION YEARS -Tthe 5 year claim is false because it depends on tampered data. Historical temp data edited to make the past cooler and present warmer. The drought ridden temperatures during the dirty thirties were revised downward REALITY WAS ADJUSTED OUT OF EXISTENCE BY NASA.You can fudge data but you cannot remove reality burned into historic photos and famous literature of the thirties drought from excessive heat.Gwyn Morgan: ​If CO2 is to blame, how do you explain the Dirty Thirties?During the Great Depression, CO2 levels were 25 per cent lower than today’s but severe climate change led to the Dirty ThirtiesBy Gwyn Morgan |June 2, 2016, 7:14 a.m. |Image: Canadian EncyclopediaThe collapse of global commodity prices was sudden and severe. Workers coming off a decade of unprecedented prosperity suddenly found themselves jobless and unable to provide for their beleaguered families.For a time, they maintained hope that the downturn would be temporary, but as the first year stretched into the second, many lost hope. Some who had come from provinces of high unemployment to participate in the Alberta boom began their glum journey back. Laidoff workers saw a glimmer of hope when commodity prices appeared to bottom out. At the very least, it seemed, things wouldn’t get worse.Then nature unleashed a crushing conflagration. Searing winds swept across drought-stricken farms and forests. A young boy comes running breathlessly into the house shouting to his mom, “There’s a big black cloud in the sky.” They hurry outside to behold a terrifying sight in the western sky that would force the family out of their home and into an uncertain future.This is not, as it may seem, the story of the global oil price collapse combined with the Fort McMurray wildfire. The commodity price collapse in this story was caused by the economic earthquake of 1929 that launched the Great Depression. And the conflagration was the extremely hot and dry weather that turned the fertile prairie “breadbasket” into a drought-stricken wasteland. That black cloud was caused by hundreds of millions of tonnes of topsoil being blown away by the wind.Impoverished farmers, hoping for an early end to the drought, were encouraged by a couple of years of improved weather. But it was only a temporary respite. The summers of 1936 and 1937 brought an abrupt reversal that proved even hotter, drier and windier. Tens of thousands of farms were abandoned in what is remembered as the Dirty Thirties, displacing 250,000 people whose only skill set was farming.Inexplicably, the devastatingly hot conditions reversed in 1940, with the arrival of a cooling period that would last until 1975.Since the Fort McMurray disaster, some have blamed the very product the people work to produce as the cause of the hot, dry weather that nurtured the wildfires. But analysis of temperature data over the past century shows some startling facts. First, the 1930s were by far the hottest period. Of the 10 highest temperature days ever recorded in Canada, seven occurred in the 1930s. And none of those top 10 temperature records were set during the past decade. Yet the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the 1930s was some 25 per cent lower than today’s levels.While theories abound, scientists have not been able to explain why, during a period of such low CO2 levels, such an abrupt shift from a long period of moderate temperatures and ample rainfall to devastatingly hot and dry conditions could occur. Likewise, scientists struggle to explain the equally sudden shift in 1940 that saw a 35-year-long cooling period even as greenhouse gas emissions rapidly increased.But whatever the answer to that question, one thing is crystal clear: Tying any single extreme weather event to atmospheric CO2 concentrations simply isn’t historically or scientifically credible.The Fort McMurray fires took about one million barrels per day out of production. But did that reduce global consumption of fossil fuels? Of course not. Countries including Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Angola and Ivory Coast quickly filled the void.Not only do these countries have appalling human rights records but, as we have become painfully aware, some of the proceeds from their sales are funnelled to extremist groups who shatter the lives of people throughout the Middle East and North African region and foment terror across the west.Those who celebrated the Fort McMurray disaster as divine environmental justice need to know this: Shutting down the Canadian oilsands altogether would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by a minuscule one-10th of a per cent, only to be replaced by oil from countries whose environmental and human rights records are vastly inferior to Canada’s.My vote goes to the made-in-Canada oil produced by those resilient, hard-working Canadians who have been forced to endure job loses, destructive wildfires and environmental extremist schadenfreude as they proudly anchor a crucial economic cornerstone of our country.I’ll take the values contained in their made-in-Canada oil over that Middle Eastern and North African stuff any day.© 2016 Distributed by Troy MediaGwyn Morgan: ​If CO2 is to blame, how do you explain the Dirty Thirties? | Carbon & Sustainability | JWN EnergyTHE SUN IS INACTIVE AND EARTH IS COOLING.This claim of 5 years warmest is impossible and or irrelevant because it is just a short bump. The claim is bunk and the authors are fooled by randomness.Paul Carfoot@PaulCarfoot·Climate alarmists are so arrogant they think natural climate variations stopped around 150 years ago? The climate is always warming and cooling, always has always will. Recent modern warming, not outside the realms of natural variability. #ClimateChange #AGW pic.twitter.com/HpGuhSnTSY— Paul Carfoot (@PaulCarfoot) September 30, 2019Climate alarmists are so arrogant they think natural climate variations stopped around 150 years ago? The climate is always warming and cooling, always has always will. Recent modern warming, not outside the realms of natural variability. #ClimateChange #AGWThe History Of NASA/NOAA Temperature CorruptionPosted on January 14, 2016 by tonyhellerChallenge_chapter2.pdfThis pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder.In 1974, The National Center For Atmospheric Research (NCAR) generated this graph of global temperatures, showing a large spike in the 1940’s, rapid cooling to 1970 and net cooling from 1900 to 1970.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdfIn 1975, the National Academy of Sciences published a very similar graph for Northern hemisphere temperatures, which also showed net cooling from 1900 to 1970.Page 148 : understandingcli00unit.pdfBy 1981, the graph had started to tilt to the left. Temperatures in 1970 were now about 0.1C warmer than 1900.Not surprisingly, this change coincided with James Hansen’s interest in demonstrating a CO2 driven warming trend.Challenge_chapter2.pdfThis pattern of NASA making the past cooler and the present warmer has occurred repeatedly since NASA became chartered with proving global warming. The past keeps getting colder.1981: Challenge_chapter2.pdf2001: Fig.A.pscurrent: Fig.A.gifThe next graph shows how 1880-2000 global warming has been doubled since 2001, simply by altering the data. This graph is normalized to the most recent common years of the 1990’s.The NASA temperature data is based on NOAA GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) data. The map below shows where their stations are located, with gray representing no data. They are missing data for about half of the Earth’s surface including most of Africa, Antarctica and Greenland. The only places with complete coverage are the US and Western Europe. The gray areas are filled in with computer modeled temperatures, meaning that about 50% of the global data used by NASA and NOAA is fake.The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XXFebruary 19, 2019/ Francis MentonSince last October, this series has been sitting at the rather awkward number of 19 (or “XIX”) posts.Time to round it off at an even XX.For those new to this topic, the Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time is the systematic downward adjustment of early-year temperatures in order to create a fake enhanced warming trend, the better to bamboozle voters and politicians to go along with extreme measures to try to avert the impending “climate crisis.” Prior posts in this series have documented large and unexplained downward adjustments at hundreds of stations around the world that are used by official government organizations (in the US, primarily NOAA and NASA) to wipe out early-year high temperatures and thereby proclaim that the latest month or year is “the hottest ever!” To read all prior posts in this series, go to this link.You might ask, with the extensive exposure of these unsupportable downward adjustments of early-year temperatures by official government organizations — accompanied by highly credible accusations of scientific fraud — haven’t the adjusters been cowed by now into a smidgeon of honesty? It sure doesn’t look that way.The latest news comes out of Australia, via the website of Joanne Nova. Nova’s February 17 post is titled “History keeps getting colder — ACORN2 raises Australia’s warming rate by over 20%.” “ACORN2” is a newly revised and updated temperature series for Australia, with temperatures going back to 1910 based on records from 112 weather stations on the continent, some 57 of which have records that go back all the way to the 1910 start date. “ACORN” stands for Australian Climate Observations Reference Network. The ACORN2 data compilation is so called to distinguish it from ACORN1, which was only released some 7 years ago in 2012.The people who put out these things are the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.According to Nova, the latest temperature adjustments were released “oh-so-quietly.” I guess that the plan is just to start using the new figures as the historical comparisons and bet that journalists will be too stupid or ignorant to figure out that the earlier temperatures have been altered. That’s actually a pretty good bet. However, down in Australia they do have a hard-working group of independent researchers who are on top of this issue. One of them is Nova, and another is Chris Gillham. Gillham has done his own very detailed analysis of the adjustments in the ACORN2 report, and has also put up a post on same at Watts Up With That.So there is plenty of information out there for intelligent people to make an independent judgment.A few excerpts from Nova:Once again we find that the oldest thermometers were apparently reading artificially high, even though many were newish in 1910 and placed in approved Stevenson screens. This is also despite the additional urban warming effect of a population that grew 400% since then. What are the odds?! Fortunately . . ., sorry scientists have uncovered the true readings from the old biased thermometers which they explain carefully in a 67 page impenetrable document. . . . The new ACORN version has nearly doubled the rate of warming in the minima of the longest running stations.Nova has put together several charts to show the magnitude of the adjustments, not only from ACORN1 to ACORN2, but also from the prior AWAP compilation to ACORN1. To no one’s surprise, each round of adjustments makes the earlier years cooler, and thus enhances the apparent warming trend. Here is Nova’s chart showing the amount of warming from the beginning to the end of the series, for each of AWAP, ACORN1 and ACORN2, and for minimum, mean and maximum temperatures:For example, the average minimum temperature had increased over the century covered by 0.84 deg C in the AWAP series. That increased to 1.02 deg C in the ACORN1 series, and to 1.22 deg C in the ACORN2 series.You need to go over to Gillham’s work to see how these changes derive mostly from decreases in early-year temperatures. Here is a chart from Gillham on the changes to minimum temperatures at the 57 stations that go back all the way to the 1910 start:As you can see, the “raw” and “v1” temperatures tend to be close — sometimes one higher, sometimes the other. But v2 is significantly lower across the board in the earlier years. Then, suddenly, in the recent years, it tracks the “raw” almost http://perfectly.Do they offer a justification for these downward adjustments? Yes, but nothing remotely satisfactory. The one-word explanation is “homogenization.” OK, we understand what that is. For example, sometimes a station moves, and that causes a discontinuity, where, say, the new location is systematically 0.1 deg C lower than the old. An adjustment needs to be made. But these sorts of adjustments should cancel out. How is it possible that every time some official meteorological organization anywhere in the world makes some of these “homogenization” adjustments, the result is that earlier years get colder and the supposed “global warming” trend gets enhanced — always to support a narrative of “climate crisis.”Well, fortunately, this time the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has put out a very long 57-page document explaining what they have done. Here it is. Is it any help?As far as I am concerned, this is the definitive proof of the fraud. If this were even an attempt at real, credible science, the proponents would put out a document complete with the details of the adjustments — and all of their computer code — so that an independent researcher could replicate the work. Nothing like that is here. This is pure bafflegab. Nova calls it “impenetrable,” which is way too nice a word as far as I’m concerned. Let me give you a small taste:3. HOMOGENISATION METHODS3.1 Detection of inhomogeneities - use of multiple detection methods in parallelIn version 1 of ACORN-SAT, a single statistical method for detection of inhomogeneities was used (Trewin, 2012). This method was based closely on the Pairwise Homogenisation Algorithm (PHA) developed by Menne and Williams (2009), and involves pairwise comparison of data between the candidate station and all sufficiently well-correlated stations in the region, with the Standard Normal Homogeneity Test (SNHT) (Alexandersson, 1986) used to identify significant breakpoints in the difference series. The test was carried out separately on monthly mean anomalies (as a single time series with 12 data points per year), and seasonal mean anomalies, with a breakpoint flagged for further assessment if it was identified in either the monthly series, or (within a window of ± 1 year) in at least two of the four seasons. Further details of the implementation of the PHA in the ACORN-SAT dataset are available in Trewin (2012).A range of other detection methods have been developed in recent years, many of which were the subject of the COST-HOME intercomparison project (Venema et al., 2012). Three of these methods were selected for use in ACORN-SAT version 2, the selection primarily based on ease of implementation. These methods were:• • HOMER version 2.6, joint detection (Mestre et al., 2013)• • MASH version 3.03 (Szentimrey, 2008).• • RHTests version 4 (Wang et al., 2010).All of these methods, which use different statistical approaches, have been successfully used across a range of networks since their development. Further details on their implementation are given in Appendix Cahaya Kristal Child Learning Center favorite part is that reference at the end to “Appendix C.” This document has no Appendix C. There are three appendices, numbered Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3. That’s about the intellectual level we are dealing with.Anyway, try going to this document and see if you can figure out what they are doing. Believe me, you can’t.And finally: over the years as I have accumulated posts on this topic, several commenters have suggested that I must be alleging some kind of conspiracy among government climate scientists in making these adjustments. I mean, without that, how does it come about that the Australians just happen to be making the exact same kinds of adjustments as NASA, NOAA, and for that matter, as the Brits at the Hadley Center in the UK?If your brain is wondering how that could be, I would suggest that we have the same kind of phenomenon going on here as the hate crime hoax phenomenon. How does Jussie Smollett just happen to fake a hate crime playing right into the progressive narrative of the moment — just as did the Duke lacrosse team hoaxer, and the Virginia fraternity hoaxer, and the Harvard Law School black tape hoaxers, and many dozens of others? (Here is a compilation of some 15 recent hate crime hoaxes.) Did they all coordinate in one grand conspiracy? Or did they all just realize what was needed from them to support their “team” and its narrative?The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time -- Part XX — Manhattan ContrarianTemperatures are falling not rising by 0.4* C over the past few years.We are in an ice age and only just recovering from the very recent Little Ice Age so more warming is great and is certainly nothing to try to stop.If the temperature was so hot the last 5 years why is there a hockey stick increase in Arctic ice?The Antarctic is larger in size than the USA and the weather has not been above zero since 1960. The earth is still in an ice age and polar ice is the most relevant indicia.Where did the claim of 5 warmest years come from because if it is climate models they are false.The US has the best and only reliable weather stations going back 100 years and they clearly show temperatures declining (see graph) as you would expect when we are recording weather during an ice age.“MILDER WINTER TEMPERATURES WILL DECREASE HEAVY SNOWSTORMS”False prediction of the UN in 2001, although the reason made sense as part of the theory that global warming was happening at break neck speed. Winter weather is surely key to any real evidence of climate change from the current ice age interglacial to tropical like climate. The very definition of an ice age is about polar ice being present annually and as long as there is lots of winter snow the glaciers are not going away. The moderate winter projection could not be wrong.. as in factl winters have been early everywhere with heavy snowfall and brutal storms. This key winter evidence means there is no unnatural global warming only the recovery from the Little Ice Age during cyclical warming ocean currents.For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction. In weather, that tends to be hot/dry and cold/snow. In 2000, scientists at CRU said snow is a thing of the past. IPCC, 2001: "Milder winter temps. will decrease heavy snowstorms." But now they cause it? Makes no sense.7:10 AM · Sep 30, 2019·Twitter for Androidhttps://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1178673478712602624/likeshttps://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1178673478712602624/likesNow snowing heavily in 8 states and 5 provinces in North America - in SeptemberRobert W. FelixIce Age NowSun, 29 Sep 2019 19:39 UTC© Karen Manzer ‏This will be a "Major To Historic Winter Storm in the northern Rockies," warns the National Weather Service."A powerful storm system will produce several feet or more of wet, heavy snow; and gusty winds in the Northern Rockies," says the NWS. "Snow is also forecast along the Rocky Mountain Front, portions of the Great Basin, and other northwestern Mountains. Trees with leaves will be vulnerable to damage. Heavy snow and strong winds will make travel difficult to impossible in places."The trees are still fully loaded with foliage, so the strong winds and heavy, wet snow is expected is to bring down trees and power lines leading to widespread power outages.As of Sunday morning, http://accuweather.com weather maps showed snow or snow showers in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.Kyle Brittain@KyleTWNMan wades through deep snow, enjoys it#abstorm @weathernetwork363Man wades through deep snow, enjoys it#abstorm @weathernetwork pic.twitter.com/iLDDvFazd9— Kyle Brittain (@KyleTWN) September 29, 2019· Improvement District No. 4 Waterton, AlbertaTwitter Ads info and privacyThe winterlike storm is unleashing feet of snow and life-threatening conditions in northwestern US, warned Accuweather.East-facing slopes of the Sawtooth, Flathead and Lewis and Clark ranges in Montana will experience the heaviest amount of snow, 2-3 feet (60-91 cm) to as much as 65 inches (122 cm).However, a general 1-2 feet (30-60 cm) of snow will fall over the mountains with anywhere from a bit of slush to several inches of snow at low elevations.Bitter cold to last for daysPerhaps even worse is that residents who lose power will face subfreezing temperatures approaching zero F in some areas, says accuweather.These bitterly cold conditions are expected to last for days after the storm.Global-warming adherents warn of cataclysmic consequences years down the road, but this 'winterlike' storm is producing life-threatening conditions right now.Which would you prefer? Global warming? Or almost sub-zero temperatures with no heat or electricity?JWSpry@JWSpry·❄️ SNOW will become “A very rare/exciting event. Children aren’t going to know what snow is.” – Dr. Viner (2000)❄️ “Goodbye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000)❄️ “..decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC (2001)❄️ “End of Snow?” NYTimes (2014) https://t.co/viCi8EDdjT via @JWSpry https://t.co/hL07VgAXWj— JWSpry 🇦🇶 (@JWSpry) September 30, 2019SNOW will become “A very rare/exciting event. Children aren’t going to know what snow is.” – Dr. Viner (2000)“Goodbye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel (2000)“..decrease heavy snowstorms” IPCC (2001)“End of Snow?” NYTimes (2014) http://climatism.blog/2019/09/14/cli via@JWSpryThanks to Roger Higgs for this link.There are many studies that show climate scientists have tampered with temperature data to make the climate appear warmer than reality. The most outrageous was Michael Mann erasing the accepted science of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age to claim unprecedented warming today. FALSE.Ball attacked Mann who sued Ball for libel and lost last month in the Supreme Court of BC.UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAINAnthony Watts / August 22, 2019Original title before update: Breaking: Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to paySee the update below.Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit.That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here.Now in the Mann case, which goes back to 2011, there’s also a complete dismissal. Ball wrote to me less than an hour ago, asking me to announce it here.He writes:Hi AnthonyMichael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.Tim BallThis is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAINNASA pulls climate data out of hats like rabbitsBy Dr. Jay Lehr |September 1st, 2019|Climate|72 CommentsLate last year NASA scientist Martin Mlynczak, announced that the Earth may be cooling. It was surprise because data manipulation has been going on for many years at both NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency) and NASA (National Aeronautic and Space Agency).The most current temperature curves produced by these agencies track well with the increases in man’s carbon dioxide emissions in recent decades. However a few years earlier the data presented looked nothing like that of more recent times.For years Climate activists in charge of NOAA and NASA were surprised that their own data and satellite measurements had been showing the climate to be stable or cooling since 1998 while CO2 levels had continued to rise. They were under intense pressure to explain how this could be in the face of all the alarmist reports put out by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It was time to resort to the strategy that progressives use in times of crisis. If you do not like the facts, ignore them. The publication Frontiers of Freedom in their February 23, 2016 issue documented what has been done in an article by T. Richard titled “How NOAA Rewrote Climate Data to Hide Global Warming Pause”.http://httpe://www.ff.org/how-noaa-rewrote-climate-data-to-hide-global-warming-pause/.The falsification of climate data by NOAA and NASA covers more than just the past decade. The U.S. has published temperature data beginning in 1880 up to the present. Tony Heller shows how their data has been tinkered with many times in past years, in The History of NASA/NOAA Temperature Corruption posted at https://realclimatescience.com/2016/01/the-history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/.The graph of the NASA data from 1880 to the year 2000 (below) was posted in 1999. On the same chart is the data NASA posted for the very same years in 2016. This obvious alteration of reality should be an embarrassment to NASA, but appears not to be.Representative Lamar Smith former chair of the House of Representatives Science and Technology Committee demanded that NOAA and NASA produce their data for independent analysis. NOAA refused to release the subpoenaed documents. Judicial Watch has sued NOAA under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain access to their data. So far nothing has been turned over.The climate curve recalculated in 2016 is now in complete agreement with the global warming movement. The cooling trend between 1940 and 1970 has been eliminated. The data now show that temperatures are increasing along with our rising carbon dioxide. The new curve shows the Earth’s temperature increased 1.4 degrees C since 1880. Temperatures that are out of line with the prediction of alarmists are gradually and systematically adjusted and replaced by corrected computer-generated temperatures. Children who are fed this new data are being recruited to beg us to save their futures.The truth seeping out from NASA was first reported in the New American magazine by James Murphy in October of 2018 where he quoted Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center saying “High above Earths’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold” Major media outlets completely ignored this information.This new revelation comes from NASA’s SABER instrument aboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. In plain talk SABER stands for Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry and TIMED stands for the Thermosphere Ionosphere Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics.SABER monitors infrared radiation from carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide which are two of the gases that play a major role in releasing energy from the thermosphere at the top of our atmosphere which encapsulates our planets heat. Mlynczak, who is the associate principal investigator for SABER said “the thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimums. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle effects our planet”.Solar Minimums as the words would indicate are periods of less activity spawning a decrease in radiation launched toward the Earth.While pondering this surprise comment from NASA in a January 30, 2019 post, author Michael Sherlock said “all any of this proves is that we have at best, a cursory understanding of Earth’s incredibly complex climate system. So when mainstream media and carbon credit salesman Al Gore breathlessly warn you that we must do something about climate change, it’s alright to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that we don’t have the knowledge, skill or resources to have much effect on the Earth’s climate.”Author·Dr. Jay LehrJay Lehr is the author of more than 1,000 magazine and journal articles and 36 books. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government, as well as many foreign countries. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology.https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/01/nasa-pulls-climate-data-out-of-hats-like-rabbits/QUORAHow do those who see no climate problem account for the fact that the last 50 years has seen global land surface temperature rise faster than at any previously recorded time in the planet's history?Paul NoelPaul Noel, former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH Huntsville Al. (2009-2014)Answered 22h agoIt works this way. You establish a weather station sensor set to take care of an airport in 1910. The airport is a grass strip way out in the country. Times change the airport gets paved then the parking areas grow. Then industry grows. Finally your sensors are outside a building surrounded by paved areas and right next to an AC unit. If you cannot figure this out you are lost.This is called a site error. All weather sets relocated to proper locations have all shown NO temperature rise. If anything they show declines.Or maybe you didn’t know that almost all weather stations are associated with airports?954 views · View Upvoters · View Sharers · Answer requested by Vaughan PrattTL Winslow, Ross Firestone, Dee Francis Padamadan, and Richard Dress upvoted thisJames MatkinRoss Firestone22h ago · 3 upvotesI know of a larger site error than airports:: a weather station next to a power sub-station with air cooled transformers. When the electricity demand is high on a hot summer’s day, the cooling fans blow hot air directly on the temperature sensor producing Phoenix-high temperatures.William Sheridan21h ago · 4 upvotesYour claim about rate of change is , well, scientific bullshit. Here are the interglacial periods in the mere 450,000 years ago to now. Historically, we should be about 2°C hotter.1976 Shock News : No Climate Disaster PendingPosted on May 27, 2014by stevengoddardNo warming in the mid-Atlantic states since 1800, and no climate disaster pending.TimesMachine: February 22, 1976 – NYTimes.com

Short answer:When the planet is rapidly warming in a time when all natural factors says it should be cooling, you know something else is going on. 1 C temperature rise since 1900 is 20 times faster than when the planet came out of the last ice age. In the same period the atmospheric C02 has increased from 280 ppm up to 408 ppm (45%) because of our C02 emissions. Which means 31,4% of the atmosphere C02 is ours (128/408*100). This rise in C02 would normally take thousands of years. No natural climate changes can work this fast. So we KNOW something else is going on.The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era. The carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. Its unique. It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.Longer answer:“According to natural factors, we should be cooling right now, not warming. So they can’t be responsible for our current warming trend.”Climate changes we have now are 20 times faster than the climate changes we had when leaving the last ice age. No natural changes can do this.The changes are in the OPPOSITE direction to the slow cooling trend we were on. The planet should still be cooling. But we are rapidly warming.“When we look at all the natural causes today - changes in energy from the sun, orbital cycles, natural cycles like El Nino, volcanic and other geologic activity - each and every one of those natural causes has an alibi”.Its basic physics which follows the same principles as other laws of nature.“The physics we use to understand the earth’s climate system is the same physics that explains how stoves, fridges, airplanes and more work. And most people don’t really have a problem with the physics of non-linear fluid dynamics and radiative transfer that have been well understood for decades, even centuries.” (World known and verified Quora climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe.)The effects of today's global warming are felt by societies and existing ecosystems adapted to the Holocene climate in OUR TIME - NOT the climate and CO2 levels that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.The moment when natural climate change became AGW! The huge blue spike to the right. It’s that obvious.WE have changed the natural slow cooling trend. If it was “climate has always changed” and natural cycles, BOTH C02 LEVELS AND TEMPERATURE SHOULD GO DOWN NOW!!Nature does what it does. Extra carbon dioxide, extra greenhouse effect. Extra greenhouse effect, higher mean global temperature.Its not hard to spot the change of pattern;This studyClimate variations analyzed five million years back in timeshows that the interglacial periods, like the one we are in now, are ALWAYS stable. So the rapid warming we see now in the OPPOSITE direction to the natural slow cooling trend, is very very unnatural. It got human fingerprints all over it.The Hockey Stick:The 10 Hottest Global Years on RecordFor 400 Months in a Row, the Earth Has Been Warmer Than 20th Century AverageLast four years are 'world's hottest'Do you think there is a another explanation for global warming which just happen to have exactly the same characteristics as an increase of C02 and the other greenhouse gases?The other factors can’t make all the check marks:Some aspects of the science of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s.CONTENTThe simple basic physics behind AGW (anthropogenic global warming)What the peer reviewed science saysThe Sun and internal variabilityAll temperature data shows the same warming trendThe Hockey stickConsensus updateLinks to hot topic answersLinksLets explain AGW in a few simple steps using only school science:Third rock from the Sun.In the 1820s Joseph Fourier calculated that an object the size of the Earth, and at its distance from the Sun, should be considerably colder than the planet actually is if warmed by only the effects of incoming solar radiation.There have to be something else giving us this habitable temperature.1856:Eunice Newton Foote was an American scientist, inventor, and women's rights campaigner from Seneca Falls, New York. She was the first to define the greenhouse effect in her paper 'Circumstances affecting the heat of sun's rays' at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in 1856.Foote conducted a series of elegant experiments that demonstrated the interactions of the sun's rays on different gases.Of the gases she tested, Foote concluded that carbonic acid trapped the most heat, reaching a temperature of 125 F. Foote's work was the first description of what we know today as the Greenhouse effect1859:John Tyndall suggests that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change.Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities, these gases absorb much more strongly than the atmosphere itself.While other planets in Earth's solar system are either scorching hot or bitterly cold, Earth's surface has relatively mild, stable temperatures. Earth enjoys these temperatures because of its atmosphere, which is the thin layer of gases that cloak and protect the planet.CO2 happens to have a special feature naturally. It absorbs heat radiation very effectively. It has to do with the vibratory and rotational properties of the molecule itself. The structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it. We can easily measure their properties in laboratories, and derive them from quantum physics.That’s just how it is. Nature made that happen. That’s what basic physics tells us. This have been known since 1856.Without CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases ability to absorb infrared radiation, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse and throw the global climate into an ice-bound state. Without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the mean temperature of the Earth would be down to -15 degrees Celsius instead of + 15 degrees Celsius.It’s so trivial 5th graders can demonstrate Greenhouse effect at home:As the largest contributor to the natural greenhouse effect, water vapour plays an essential role in the Earth’s climate.However, the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions. For that reason, scientists consider it a feedback agent, rather than a forcing to climate change.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why do people believe CO2 emissions are a serious problem when they're now only a little over 400 parts per million of the atmosphere (0.04%)?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How long have we known about the greenhouse effect?https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdfIain Stewart demonstrates a simple experiment that shows that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. Scene from BBC's 'Earth: The Climate Wars' documentary:2. Anyone can take out their spectroscopes and see with their own eyes C02 traps heat that would otherwise escape into space. And again, its 200 years old science.“Spectroscopy is a method of detecting elements by looking at how electromagnetic radiation passes through them. Different elements have electrons in orbits at varying energy levels, and this affects the way they resonate. It's the reason why neon lights produce different colors depending on what gases we fill them with. It's also the way we're able to tell what proportions of hydrogen, helium, and other elements are in distant stars: the spectrum of light coming from them has peaks and valleys that are chemical fingerprints of exactly what gases are in them.”“The Earth's surface is warmed by the sun, and as a warm globe in space, the Earth itself emits that same heat right back out, as infrared radiation. If we go outside and point a spectrometer at the sky, we can see there are peaks and valleys in the infrared spectrum. Some wavelengths of heat fly right out into space unhindered, while other wavelengths are absorbed by the atmosphere, and that heat stays there, where we're able to detect its wavelength with our spectrometer. And exactly the same way as we're able to identify the elements in a distant star, we're able to identify exactly which greenhouse gases are trapping the Earth's radiative heat. This is how we were able to identify those five main gases. And this isn't new; we've understood this for 200 years. It's a direct measurement that anyone with a spectrometer can reproduce. Not a model, not a prediction, not a guess.”“Water vapor, which is the most prominent, defines the basic shape of the greenhouse spectrum. Most of the infrared radiation that escapes the Earth goes through a window left open by water vapor, which we call the infrared window. This window in the spectrum, which is pretty wide, is centered around a wavelength of about 10 µm (micrometers). At higher and lower wavelengths, water vapor absorbs much of the Earth's radiated heat, so the Earth has always relied on this open window in the spectrum to allow the excess heat to escape. One end of the infrared window is overlapped by CO2's absorption range, which is centered around 15 µm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere acts like a sliding door which widens or narrows the infrared window. As CO2 increases, the infrared window is narrowed, less radiation escapes into space, and more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere. At the other end of the infrared window, around 7.5 µm, methane has a similar effect, contributing about 1/4 as much warming as CO2.”“Spectroscopy is hard science. We don't have to model or predict. Simply by pointing our instruments at the sky, we can, right now, directly observe and identify the greenhouse gases, and measure exactly how much radiative energy the atmosphere is absorbing and keeping here on Earth. This direct, non-ambiguous spectroscopic reading is the "smoking gun" that proves the excess heat energy being trapped in our atmosphere is due to CO2.”[…] “Within that infrared window defined by water vapor, there is one big spike. It is the 15 µm range of CO2. This is explicit, unambiguous proof that the increased heat in our atmosphere is due to CO2. It has nothing to do with models or predictions; it is a direct observation, it is hard chemistry and basic physics, not guesswork or extrapolation.”“As we burn fossil fuels, the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the infrared window narrows, less heat radiates away from the Earth, and more heat goes into the Earth's system. These are simple, solid facts. Energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.”https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdfThe Simple Proof of Man-Made Global Warming3. HOW DO WE KNOW ITS OUR CO2 CAUSING THE WARMING?The carbon in the atmospheric CO2 contains information about its source, so that scientists can tell that fossil fuel emissions comprise the largest source of the increase since the pre-industrial era.How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we knowThe carbon from burning fossil fuels have a different isotope signal (radioactivity) than C02 coming from natural sources. Its like a fingerprint. Its unique.Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2): NASA's New Carbon CounterHere’s how scientists know.“We can carbon date the CO2 in the atmosphere, and tell exactly how much of it comes from humans burning fossil fuels. It's a direct measurement. It leaves no room for interpretation”.“The same elements (i.e. same number of protons in the nucleus) with different mass numbers (arising from the different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus) are called isotopes. Each carbon molecule has six protons in the nucleus, but there are many different isotopes with varying numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. Carbon isotopes from different sources are “lighter” (high negative value) or heavier (lower negative value). For example, carbon from ocean is the standard with a value of “0” while carbon from fossil fuels ranges from -20 to -32. While atmospheric carbon has an average value of -5 to -9, it is becoming “lighter” over time as carbon from fossil fuels become more abundant in the atmosphere.”Fortunately, corals provide a window further into the past. In Evidence for ocean acidification in the Great Barrier Reef of Australia (Wei et al 2009), the authors drilled a coral core from Arlington Reef, situated in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef. This enabled them to measure δ13C going back to 1800.https://skepticalscience.com/The-human-fingerprint-in-coral.htmlhttps://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c1d4/d59417490007e69c9517c3f7bbbbfc851d83.pdfWhat they find is the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 is relatively steady over much of the last two centuries. However, it starts to dramatically decrease in the latter half of the 20th Century. Increasing anthropogenic emissions of CO2 not only increased the levels of atmospheric CO2 concentration but also decreased the δ13 C composition of the atmosphere. Thus, the decrease in δ13 C is attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.The Suess Effect is a term which has come to signify the decrease in 14C in atmospheric CO2 owing to admixture of CO2 produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. This term is here extended, as a concept, to the shifts in isotopic ratio of both 13C and 14C in any reservoir of the carbon cycle owing to anthropogenic activities.The Suess effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon interrelationsChanges in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 are also caused by other sources and sinks, but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components (Francey et al., 1995).http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/ralph/25_Partition.pdfAdditional confirmation that rising CO2 levels are due to human activity comes from examining the ratio of carbon isotopes found in the atmosphere. Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003). The C13/C12 ratio correlates with the trend in global emissions.http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_lab/publications/PG_WB_IJMS.pdfICE CORE DATA TELLS US TODAYS CO2 PPM IS THE HIGHEST FOR NEARLY 3 MILLION YEARS.“Scientists working in the Allen Hills region of Antarctica have drilled the oldest ice core ever. Dating back an estimated 2.7 million years, this ice sample is more than 1.5 million years older than any other previously recovered and the data garnered from the sample offers a rich insight into the climate of the planet millions of years ago.”“The discovery has revealed that 2.7 million years ago, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were less than 300 parts per million. This is slightly lower than some other fossil records have previously indicated, and some climate scientists have theorized that this low level of atmospheric CO2 could have been the trigger for subsequent ice ages. In comparison, our globe recently officially passed the threshold of 400 parts per million for the first time in 3.6 million years.”Oldest ice-core ever drilled dates back 2.7 million years2.7-million-year-old ice core pulled from AntarcticaFor the last 800,000 years, average global CO2 levels fluctuated between about 170 ppm and 280 ppm. Once humans started to burn fossil fuels in the industrial era, things changed rapidly.Only in the industrial era has the number risen above 300 ppm. The concentration first crept above 400 ppm in 2013, and continues to climb.Climate change evidence: How do we know?Scientists debate the last time CO2 levels were this high. It might have happened during the Pliocene era, between 2 and 4.6 million years ago, when sea levels were at least 60 to 80 feet higher than today. It may have been in the Miocene, 10 to 14 million years ago, when seas were more than 100 feet higher than now.The Last Time CO2 Was This High, Humans Didn’t ExistIn our 800,000-year record, it took about 1,000 years for CO2 levels to increase by 35 ppm. We're currently averaging an increase of more than 2 ppm per year, meaning that we could hit an average of 500 ppm within the next 45 years, if not sooner.It’s like DNA proof in a murder investigation.The Keeling CurveC02 ppm in 1850: 280CO2 ppm in 2018: 409409 - 280 = 129( 129 / 280 ) * 100 = 46 %That’s a 46% increase of C02 because of us, which means 31,5% of the atmosphere C02 is from humans.(129 / 409 ) *100=31,5%Studies: atmospheric CO2 concentration drives climate changeOn the causal structure between CO2 and global temperatureStudies: atmospheric CO2 drives climate change ancient and modern.99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study2. WHAT THE BEST PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE SAYS:From about 1880 our C02 emissions started to influence Climate changes , and after 1950, according to scientists, humans ARE the dominant cause of global warming.Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences, the world’s most prestigious academy, founded by Abraham Lincoln, with over 200 Nobel Price winners among their members.This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the first of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.The 600 page report was created from input by scientists working at 13 different federal government agencies.“Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”For the warming over the last century,“there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”Climate Science Special Report: Executive SummaryFourth National Climate Assessment: Executive Summary“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {1.2, 1.3.1}”.https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdfGlobal warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans? | Dana Nuccitellihttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdfNASA:The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 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 the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. 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.Climate change evidence: How do we know?FACT CHECK: Does an 'Increase' in Arctic and Greenland Ice Cast Doubt on the Reality of Global Warming?COPERNICUS:Average temperatures for 2017 were higher than climatological values for 1981-2010 over virtually all of Europe.Climate in 2017 - European temperatureCAUSATION:First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface"the critical link between c02 concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect [...] and further confirmation that the calculations used in today’s climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.”Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science BasisThe worlds most famous natural historian Sir David Attenborough:THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS50 YEARS OF US SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENTS AND PRESIDENTS COMES TO THE SAME CONCLUSION ON AGW:Trump's 2018 National Climate Assessment. ️Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”For the warming over the last century,“there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”Climate Science Special Report: Executive SummaryRonald Reagan’s 1989 EPA REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGEPage 28: http://bit.ly/2w8YMuVPRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON’S 1965 “Restoring the Quality of our Environment report”.Fifty years ago: The White House knew all about climate changeOn November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.That 1965 White House report stated:“Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more CO2 in our atmosphere than present. This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”On the 50th anniversary of the White House report, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are indeed at 399 ppm: 25 percent over 1965 levels, exactly as predicted 50 years ago.http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sit...Scientists warned the President about global warming 50 years ago today | Dana Nuccitelli3. THE SUN AND INTERNAL VARIABILITYIf the sun is such a key driver of the Earth’s climate, then why has the entire planet (air, oceans, land, and ice) warmed rapidly over the past 60 years while solar activity has declined?If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere.That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. A very clear human fingerprint.Lower troposphere temperatures are increasing:Images from Remote Sensing Systems Time Series Trend BrowserThe upper troposphere is cooling (ie less heat is escaping back into space).The higher up you go (into the stratosphere) – cooling is increasing:This phenomenon can only be attributed to the insulating effect of increasing greenhouse gases.If increased solar radiation (or other external source) was to blame for increasing temperatures, then the upper parts of our atmosphere should show increases in temperature, rather than cooling.Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD."According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.”"Don't blame the sun for recent global warming. A new analysis, based on historical data rather than computer simulations, shows that our star's role in climate change has been vastly overtaken by other factors, particularly the human-induced buildup of greenhouse gases."Not Much Warming Under the SunGlobal warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we knowWe are not in an ice age.Here’s Why We’re Not Living in an Ice Age (And Why That Matters for the Future)Internal variabilityis the hardest to evaluate. We know that ENSO significantly changes the Earth’s temperature, and so long-term ENSO-like variation is something we have to consider. However, nobody has yet put forth a viable mechanism or shown data that such a long-term cycle exists. In the absence of any evidence supporting it, we conclude that it’s likely internal variability is playing a minor role in today’s warming. Clearly, future research might cause us to re-examine this conclusion."it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cyclesNatural cycles can only move heat around, as heat exchange within the oceans or from the oceans to the atmosphere. But now we see adding of heat both in oceans and the atmosphere. So the adding of heat to the energy budget we see now must come from somewhere else than natural cycles.No credible study has suggested that ocean oscillations can account for the long-term trends. The key observation here is the increase in ocean heat content over the last half century (the figure below shows three estimates of the changes since 1955). This absolutely means that more energy has been coming into the system than leaving.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/04/judy-currys-attribution-non-argument/#comment-677575Now this presents a real problem for claims that ocean variability is the main driver. To see why, note that ocean dynamics changes only move energy around – to warm somewhere, they have to cool somewhere else. So posit an initial dynamic change of ocean circulation that warms the surface (and cools below or in other regions). To bring more energy into the system, that surface warming would have to cause the top-of-the-atmosphere radiation balance to change positively, but that would add to warming, amplifying the initial perturbation and leading to a runaway instability. There are really good reasons to think this is unphysical.Remember too that ocean heat content increases were a predicted consequence of GHG-driven warming well before the ocean data was clear enough to demonstrate it.Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulationhttps://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3353?foxtrotcallback=trueMeasurement of Oceanic Heat Flowhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0076695X08606006Summary:We know that it’s not the sunWe know that it’s not Milankovitch cyclesWe know that it’s not volcanoesWe know that even when combined, natural causes cannot explain the current warmingWe know that CO2 traps heatWe know that increasing CO2 causes more heat to be trappedWe know that CO2 was largely responsible for past climate changesWe know that we have roughly doubled the CO2 in the atmosphereWe know that the earth is trapping more heat now than it used toWe know that including anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the models is the only way to explain the current warming trendBoth the timing and magnitude of today’s warming are well-explained by greenhouse gases.This is why scientists conclude that humans are likely responsible for most of the warming of the last few decades. Greenhouse gases provide a reasonable explanation for the warming, while no other factor can explain the entire warming.The signals are coming from the planet itself:There are OBSERVED data from pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glaciers withdrawal, polar ice melting, sea level rise, ocean temperature, ecological changes, Co2 levels in the atmosphere, the undeniable temperature increase globally.Professor Kerry Emanuel has been known for his "Show me the data!" approach to climate science. In this talk, he will present a long term, evidence-driven view of Earth's climate change, culminating in a discussion of current risks and implications.Professor Emanuel is an award-winning meteorologist and climate scientist and the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. His research focuses on tropical meteorology and climate, with a specialty in hurricane physics. Emanuel has a PhD from MIT, has been a faculty member since 1981 and has served as the Director of the Center for Meteorology and Physical Oceanography and the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate. He is co-founder of the MIT Lorenz Center, which fosters creative approaches to fundamental science devoted to understanding how climate works. He was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Influential People who Shape Our World in 2006. In 2007, he was elected as a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. He is an author of over 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers and two books, including What We Know about Climate Change, recently hailed by the NY Times as "... the single best thing written about climate change for a general audience."4 ALL TEMPERATURE DATA SHOWS THE SAME WARMING TRENDAll temperature data available, including ocean data and satellite data, shows the same warming of 1.1 C (2.0 F) since about 1880.GISS measures the change in global surface temperatures relative to average temperatures from 1951 to 1980. GISS data show global average temperatures in 2017 rose 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) above the 1951-1980 mean. According to GISS, the global mean surface air temperature for that period was estimated to be 57 F (14 C). That would put the planet's average surface temperature in 2017 at 58.62 F (14.9 C).What Is Earth's Average Temperature?From the Berkeley Earth page:Berkeley Earth has examined 16 million monthly average temperature observations from 43,000 weather stations...The weather station data is combined with sea surface temperature data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre (HadSST). This ocean data is based on 355 million measurements collected by ships and buoys, including 12 million observations obtained in 2017.Here is the best known, the GISS data from NASA:GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)HERE ARE DATA FOR EUROPE:Global and European temperatureTwo long-term ocean-only temp series (with 95% conf. intervals) shows the same trend as weather stations and satellite data:http://www.realclimate.org/index...Isolated satellite data shows same trend as weather stations and ocean data:RSS: This is from their home page:http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_...UAH SATELLITE DATA:http://www.drroyspencer.com/late...For a long time the UAH satellite data showed less warming than all the other data, but this was due to a bug in the system. When this calibration error was fixed, the data showed the same warming as the other data.Satellite measurements of the troposphere confirm warming trend, data shows | Carbon BriefMajor correction to satellite data shows 140% faster warming since 1998What trend do the UAH data show now? Lets go to the UAH home page:The University of Alabama in Huntsvillehttps://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climat...Their trend is 0.13 C per decade. Very much in tune with all the other data.In the same period, NOAA data shows a trend of 0.10 C per decade!Climate at a GlanceSATELLITE DATA ARE NOT MORE ACCURATE.Satellites don't measure temperatures, they measure brightness.Brightness is converted to temperatures via computer models.The satellite record has 5 times the inaccuracy of the surface temperature record.Satellites measure the brightness of the troposphere, thousands of feet in the air (where planes fly).The surface temperature record measures the temperature at the surface, where people live.EXPLAINED BY SENIOR SCIENTIST FOR RSS SATELLITE DATA, CARL MEARS.Even a Koch-brothers funded study confirmed the temperature data:https://www.theguardian.com/scie...https://www.forbes.com/sites/ale...What happens if we put the temperature data onto each other?The 5 most known temp data, when compared, fits like hand in glove:Explainer: how surface and satellite temperature records compare | Carbon BriefPick any nation of the world and check to see if their mets have a similar temperature trend to the global GISS temperature trend from NASA.BONUS. THE “PAUSE” THAT NEVER WASNew science just in december 2018:Michael E. Mann"The 'pause' in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing models to observations" | New article in Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) by Stephan Lewandowsky, Stefan Rahmstorf, Naomi Oreskes, myself & others: http://iopscience.iop.org/art…/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372/metaThat Global Warming Hiatus? It Never Happened. Two New Studies Explain Why.Missing Arctic data was part of the problem. In the end, the idea of a pause, often cited by climate policy opponents, didn’t hold up to statistical testing.The 1998 year was also an super strong El Nino year and temperatures would always flat out a bit after that. One explanation for the "slowdown" in global warming is that a prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have climate deniers finally accepted that the 'pause' never happened? One never hears them mention it these days.5 THE “HOCKEY STICK”5 reasons why Michael E.Manns "hockeystick" is here to stay:1. Its affirmed by US National Academy of Sciences (NAS2. It’s confirmed and improved by the 4 most comprehensive studies done on the matter (+ ca 150 other studies).1. Its affirmed by US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)https://www.nature.com/articles/4411032a.pdf?origin=ppubThey are one of the most respectable scientific academies and hold a very strong position world wide and in the US, all the way back since it was co-founded by Abraham Lincoln. As of 2016, the National Academy of Sciences includes about 2,350 members and 450 foreign associates. Approximately 200 members have won a Nobel Prize.National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia (National Academy of Sciences - Wikipedia)Since then the “Hockey Stick” is confirmed and improved by the 4 most comprehensive studies done on the matter:2. 78 researchers from 24 countries, together with many other colleagues, worked for seven years in the PAGES 2k project on the new climate reconstruction. “2k” stands for the last 2000 years, while PAGES stands for the Past Global Changes program launched in 1991. Recently, their new study was published in Nature Geoscience.It is based on 511 climate archives from around the world, from sediments, ice cores, tree rings, corals, stalagmites, pollen or historical documents and measurements. All data are freely available.Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick (Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick)Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia (Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia)IPPC 2007:Climate Change 2007 (AR4)3. Planet Earth is warmer than it has been for at least 2,000 years, according to a study that took its temperature from 692 different “natural thermometers” on every continent and ocean on the planet.The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins.The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial.The world is hotter than it has been for at least 2,000 years (The world is hotter than it has been for at least 2,000 years)A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era (A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era)IPPC 2013:IPCC Fifth Assessment Report4. Researchers reconstructed temperatures from fossil pollen collected from 642 lake or pond sites across North America -- including water bodies in Wyoming -- and Europe.[...]The reconstructions indicate that evidence of periods that were significantly warmer than the last decade were limited to a few areas of the North Atlantic that were probably unusual globally. Shuman says results determined that the last decade was roughly 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer today than it was 11,000 years ago. Additionally, the decade was at least one-half degree Fahrenheit warmer today than the warmest periods of that 11,000-year time frame, even counting for uncertainties, Shuman says.(Most of last 11,000 years cooler than past decade in North America, Europe)Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures(Reconciling divergent trends and millennial variations in Holocene temperatures)5. A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Yearshttps://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdfBONUS:The "hockeystick" data IS available here:Michael E. Mann (Michael E. Mann)6. CONSENSUS UPDATE:The 97 % is old news. Why is it even higher now?There are two main reasons for this:Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawedWhat about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results. Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus."“If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors.Why Climate Skeptics Are WrongMORE AND MORE OIL COMPANIES AGREES ON AGW AND WORKS TO REDUCE GAS EMISSIONS.Its over.Climate change skeptics have outlived their usefulness to the fossil fuel industry.Climate deniers are like those japanese soldiers who was unaware that the war had ended 60 years ago.GCI is a voluntary, CEO-led initiative which aims to lead the industry response to climate change. Launched in 2014, OGCI is currently made up of ten oil and gas companies that pool expert knowledge and collaborate on action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.http://oilandgasclimateinitiative.com/Every scientific body, org and institution of the world, every National Academy of Sciences of the world, over 99% of the peer reviewed papers + most oil companies ALL agree that AGW theory is a fact. And everything is supported by the principles of basic physics!List of Worldwide Scientific OrganizationsON THE CONSENSUS:“there is a convergence of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry—pollen, tree rings, ice cores, corals, glacial and polar ice-cap melt, sea-level rise, ecological shifts, carbon dioxide increases, the unprecedented rate of temperature increase—that all converge to a singular conclusion. “In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" on strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.Consilience - WikipediaThe research gives us very unequivocally and clear data from a number of scientific fields, which, individually and together, come to the same conclusion: since the 1950s, humans ARE the main cause of nearly all of climate change. These are not forecasts, hints or models. These are OBSERVED data from pollen, rings, ice cores, corals, glaciers, polar ice melt, sea level rise, ocean temperatures, ecological changes, the CO2 level in the atmosphere, the indisputable temperature rise globally.Thus,The consensus did not arise from a vote or a gathering. It speaks to the evidence. Scientists come to a consensus after a convergence of evidence leaves no significant doubt about a result. It happens a lot in science. There is a consensus that the speed of light is the universe's speed limit. Scientists didn't vote on that or gather to agree and find evidence to support that agreement.They came to a consensus after the research from multiple independent lines of evidence converged. The same process has taken place in climate science. Scientists didn't vote on the validity of AGW or come together and agree before the evidence came in. They came to a consensus based upon multiple independent lines of evidence converged to support AGW. The consensus among scientists is real, it is not based on popularity or voting, it is based on a convergence of multiple independent lines of scientific evidence.Scientists are working on the details and are improving the knowledge database every day. New finding and corrections are happening on a daily basis. This is science at work, it doesn’t mean the main theory is wrong.“Science is never 100% settled - science is about narrowing uncertainty. Different areas of science are understood with varying degrees of certainty. For example, we have a lower understanding of the effect of aerosols while we have a high understanding of the warming effect of carbon dioxide. Poorly understood aspects of climate change do not change the fact that a great deal of climate science is well understood.”The scientific method does not produce, nor is meant to produce, absolute truths and knowledge, but increased knowledge. Such is the case - and so it must be - in climate research as for all other research. Major theories are generally always based on a large amount of smaller scientific findings. Because these little discoveries are made through the implementation of the scientific method, they makes the major scientific theories so robust and credible. In other words, there are infinite many filters, tests, corrections and objections until one gets a conclusion.That humans contribute most to climate change with our C02 emissions is such a conclusion.“Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.The theory of gravity is not “settled” either, but it will be regarded as settled until we see apples falling upwards.The opinion of any single individual scientist is irrelevant. Consensus matters in science. You will find individual scientist who dispute Einsteins Theory of General Relativity and that’s fine. That’s how science works, but the consensus holds until the evidence convinces otherwise.The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.Climate change has been verified by almost every nation-state today in some form; if it was a conspiracy by one group, then why is everyone standing behind it? Because the science is easily attainable and verified – and supported by 97% of climate scientists, with the rest having no single, coherent and verified an alternative theory. You can check the data and the science right now if you want to.“There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming, Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that's overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.”“For AGW skeptics to overturn the consensus, they would need to find flaws with all the lines of supportive evidence and show a consistent convergence of evidence toward a different theory that explains the data. (Creationists have the same problem overturning evolutionary theory.) This they have not done.”Why Climate Skeptics Are Wrong7. Links to hot topic answers:A history lesson - The Greenhouse effectRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How long have we known about the greenhouse effect?Science fundingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is scientific research generally more funded by government or the private sector?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to For those that believe climate change is a conspiracy, what is the expected gain of those who created or promulgated the conspiracy?It’s the Sun and Cosmic rays stupid:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is the following claim true: High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds? What does it mean for us during the upcoming Grand Minimum that is known to increase cosmic ray?The Grand Solar Minimun and next Ice age nonsense:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are some scientists so confident that a solar minimum won't have much of an effect Earth due to man-made global warming?The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age ignored in mainstream stories about climate change today?The “climate has changed before” and ice ages explained:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How many ice ages have we had? How many temperate ages have we had?The what lags what explained::Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Who lags who? C02 or temperature? Have you heard of the correct "It's both" alternative?For climate models and climate sensitivity:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are the predictions made by mathematical models of complex systems above criticism or debate in Climate Change science only?For C02s bad effect on plant life:https://www.quora.com/share/How-soon-will-we-feel-the-effects-of-global-warming-and-how-will-it-influence-our-day-to-day-lives-1?ch=10&share=9dc5a44cFor AGW and extreme weathers:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is there a correlation between the increase in the natural hazard events to the climate change?For the “pause” there never was:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Climate-change skeptics keep claiming global temperatures have not gone up in the last 17 years, while advocates constantly claim global temperatures are still on a rapid upward trajectory. Who is telling the truth?On wind turbines:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Do wind turbines really kill 1000s of birds?For sea level rise:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to When confronted with the fact that sea levels have been rising since the last ice age, they call me a troll. Why?Global warmings effect on oceans:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How does global warming affect the oceans?Why people dont believe in CC:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why are some reasons for why people don’t believe in climate change?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Have you learned anything from participating in the climate change debate?On carbon taxes:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is anyone worried that carbon taxes will punish the lower & middle classes while failing to have any impact on the climate?On the record low polar ice:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Which glaciers are significantly retreating due to global warming?Polar Bears and global warmingRoger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why has the news on Polar Bears dried up? They were the poster child of global warming.The 70s cooling myth debunked:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What happened to the new Ice Age that the scientists predicted in the 1970s? Now they say we have a global warming. Which is true, and how do we know?The Al Gore fallacy:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to How much has Al Gore’s wealth increased since he became an advocate for man made, global warming/climate change awareness?Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is Al Gore mocked for his teaching about climate change?Smear campaigns debunks:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What was the fallout of the Climate change e-mail scandal?The Global warming / Climate change schtick.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why is 'Climate change' apparently acceptable whereas 'Global warming' isn't?The 3-4% myth:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Human activity is responsible for 3% of CO2. How is it possible that 3% has more influence than 97%?The Heartland fake experts:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Are there any prominent and well-respected scientists who do not believe in climate change?The catastrophic straw man:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Why does everyone believe that global catastrophic risk also known as end of the world is real but it's not?That idiot Oregon petition debunked:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Would 31,000+ scientists signing a petition rejecting climate change as unscientific, be considered a consensus?The overpopulation myth:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to Is climate change/global warming the by-product of overpopulation?Why do some christians deny climate change?https://www.quora.com/share/Why-do-some-Christians-deny-global-warming-6?ch=10&share=8f353837Polar Vortex.Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What is causing the polar vortex 2019?The 2nd law and Henrys law explained:Roger Fjellstad Olsen's answer to What is the relationship between thermodynamic and greenhouse effect?8. LINKS:[1] The Keeling Curve[2] U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | US EPA[3] U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI): Introduction[4] Global Carbon Project : Homepage[5] 2016 was the hottest year on record[6] Global Climate Report - Annual 2016[7] Met Office Hadley Centre observations datasets[8] U.S. Climate Extremes Index (CEI): Introduction[9] Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Temperature | US EPA[10] National Snow and Ice Data Center[11] West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster[12] Current State of the Sea Ice Cover[13] PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis[14] https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/...[15] CU Sea Level Research Group[16] Global Average Absolute Sea Level Change, 1880-2014[17] Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature (ERSST) v4[18] Sea Surface Temperature[19] Climate Change Indicators: Sea Surface Temperature | US EPA[20] The National Academies PressScienceDirectCO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas Emissionshttps://www.c2es.org/facts-figures/international-emissions/historicalhttps://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdfThe Keeling CurveRising Global Temperatures and CO2the consensus projecthttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/War_on_Sciencehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_was_wrong_before