global warming question?

Lindsey Zanardi: I think you have to ask why would they want to “hide the decline,” or why it is a “travesty“ that the evidence does not point to the conclusion they want. Why would they want to “hide the decline” unless it is counter to an agenda that would benefit someone if there was no decline? Because as far as what is supposedly best for the earth; and if global warming is as devastating as alarmists want us to believe; then shouldn’t they be rejoicing in the fact that the global temperature is in decline rather than increasing? And how could this good news that the globe is not overheating be a travesty? Shouldn’t they be happy about the data showing steady or declining temperatures? This is the most condemning of their point of view: that they would prefer to have the facts show an increase so that their precious theory would be correct, regardless of whether or not it is what is good for earth or humans. It is clear that they have an agenda they w! ant to move forward regardless of facts, and their motivation is not based in any concern for what is best for humankind. It’s ironic you ask “how does this will affect the global temperature record” because the record is simple factual data â€" unaffected by the opinions or conclusions of scientists who have many times in the past misinterpreted facts. That’s not a criticism â€" we are human and prone to mistakes and shortsightedness. So why won’t they release the raw data? If the raw data is available to everyone, then those who understand science can analyze it and there will be not fudged conclusions hidden in mysterious computer models. Are they so arrogant as to think other scientists are not capable of analyzing the raw data correctly? They were clearly trying to hide something, and it’s safe to assume that it’s because the conclusion they have foisted upon the world is not supported by the data.

Hollis Demasters: The theory of man made global war! ming says the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from burning f! ossil fuels will increase the global climate. There is nothing in the theory which says it will allow for a cooling climate.This is another example of how the actual data does not conform to the theory. The global warming theory is a lie and unfortunately for the AGW proponents, the actual data has not ever supported the theory....Show more

Moira Woodrow: Nope. It is what they are selling. Bernie Sanders declares global warming is real, it is caused by man, and we are already seeing disastrous consequences.Now they are trying to have it both ways, and claiming that since CO2 traps heat, you must accept their entire agenda. However, you have to establish so much more. That the extra CO2 is caused by man in the first place. That the amount of warming from man is higher than the natural amount. That would get you to 'anthropogenic'.Then you have to establish that the warming would be harmful. That the harm would outweigh the benefits. That the policies to counter! the warming would not be too costly. Since that last one is impossible, that is why you have to show 'catastrophic', so that the benefits of action outweigh the costs....Show more

Daria Verfaillie: And the deletion of data because of a Freedom of Information Act Request?Surely that had a scientific purpose too. I'm sure he stepped down because he is innocent. That always happens when there is a reasonable explanation. NOT.

Davina David: global warming warms the earth.

Star Gollnick: Global warming is increasing temperature. Just as the name suggest.Your friend is thinking about global dimming, where the temperature is lowering.

Jinny Dronen: 1. Well, I don't see how adding real temps (actual measured temperatures) could ever be considered fraud.2. I'm fairly sure this is still about the tree ring problem.Almost all the "questionable" emails relate to the fact tree rings stop correlating with the temperature in the 1960's, and they don't know why.

Lorine Helwick: The oceans are an engine the warm water flows from! the equator towards the poles. The air cools the water in the northern latitudes and it sinks to the bottom where it is drawn back to the equator. Stall this engine by melting the polar caps. Super cells will form and it will block out the sun for longer than usual periods and we will have more severe winters.

Dexter Dicostanzo: I googled Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change and got 436,000 hits ther majority were not from deniers.That makes it clear to me it is not a denier term.

Mark Hovanes: A lot of words that fail to cover the lack of a site which mentions your 20m, could it be you don't have one.

Teodoro Lamond: These are the kinds of questions true skeptics would be asking. Unfortunately, those (George Will for example) drooling over stolen emails of scientists looking for dirt do not have any interest in determining context. They are the polar opposite of what true skeptics are.Your first series of questions are answered nicely here:h! ttp://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-diver...Your second series of questions are largely answered here:http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.pa...This refers to the CERES measurements and short-term trends."In this paper we have assembled the available informationon the global energy balance for recent years.Many components of the Earth system play some role,and their monitoring is improving but falls short of what isrequired. Although one climate requirement is forabsolute accuracy whereby observations are linked tobenchmark measurements, as is extensively discussedin a workshop report [46,47], a more achievable goal isto have continuity and overlapping measurements thatare stable in time, thereby allowing changes to be tracked.Hence observations need to be taken in ways that satisfythe Global Climate Observing System climate monitoringprinciples and ensure long-term continuity and that havethe ability to discern small but persistent signals [48]."

K! alyn Proietto: GLOBAL WARMING MEANS JUST THAT. THE EARTH IS HEATING UP,! SLOWLY AND CONTROLED, BUT NOT BY ANYTHING MAN MADE OR NATURE MADE BUT NATURE FORCED.

Jerald Florence: How can the warmers keep presenting an unproven theory as fact?

Gabriel Realmuto: Didn't see this when it was posted, followed a link from one of your other answers.1.Nature is a scientific journal of course. This email has to do with tree-ring proxy data which shows radical temperature drops after 1960 that do not matched the observed "real temps." The trick is to substitute the observed temperature for the proxy data. The problem with the decline is that if their proxy does not match observed current temperatures, why would anyone believe that it accurately reflects temperatures from before we can observe them. The trick makes the proxy look accurate when it is not. The tree ring proxies are vital to the "hockey stick" graph which shows that the current mild warming trend is unprecedented, and tries to erase previous climactic events like the little ice age ! and the medieval warm period.2. If you read the email here: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=104... it is clearly in response to media reports that global warming has ended, or at least paused. In particular it's about a BBC report, which they seemed to view as a betrayal, though they did claim it was "not outrageously biased." Any spin about heat balances takes it out of the original context.

Isreal Kochheiser: "That's all we need to know about it." Well, that about sums up the level of understanding in the denier camp. Once again, they have shown their true worth by failing to answer your question. I used to try and get scientific answers out of them in here as well and usually ended up with drivel pulled of "think tank" sites funded by Exxonmobil.Even worse was the drivel that sounds like the exaltations that come from 6000year bible history believers.

Mitzie Clough: Global warming is causing the earth's temp to increase. And due to that, the ! polar bears will become extinct since the polar ice caps are all meltin! g.

Sheldon Lally: You seem to prove my point unless you can provide one science related link that says oceans are going to rise 20m you are simply making the same unsupported statements ritchie is making. The official estimates I have seen on various sties use figures between 0.5 to 2m the higher figure is just a tenth of your 20m number.

William Vickerman: I think we can all safely conclude that those who say it is just a denier word are admitting that they know it our CO2 hasn't been catastrophic and probably never will be so there is no reason to enact their idiotic political solutions. Wanting solutions for non-problems is the mark of an idiot or a liar. Since I love science and want to protect from these hacks, it is important to demonstrate who they really are and what they seek. It certainly has nothing to do with science, facts, decency, or reality....Show more

Collin Pelfrey: James always says this is just a "denier" term as well. It makes no! sense to me. They are talking about a large regressive tax and globally tens of TRILLIONS spent to move away from fossil fuels. If they are not talking about catastrophic, then how can they possibly justify this large of an expenditure. Of course the ones who know the data and have to argue with people like ourselves that also know the data, what to avoid talks of catastrophe, because this data supporting catastrophe is extremely lacking. Still, to pretend that catastrophe is a "denier" term is incomprehensible. https://www.edf.org/climate/climate-facts-dangers-...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/climate-...http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/catastrop...http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/october/susan-r...When the warmers pretend that us "deniers" are saying catastrophe, they are CLEARLY LYING. When they pull this crap of lying about catastrophe and lying about who is even saying catastrophe, I have to wonder why they think we should trust them. They seem ! to think that it is the millions spent by Big Oil that causes this dist! rust. Millions is nothing compared to the billions spent on AGW advertisement. How many HBO specials say no warming or minimize climate change? How many TV shows? How many advertisements? I haven't seen ANY. The alarmunists should take note here. The reason why millions are beating out billions in convincing people is because their dishonesty. How long do they really think they can yammer on about catastrophe with no one seeing catastrophe???What is more disconcerting to me is that there are three or four climate scientists that come here frequently. Two of these (Gary F and James) tend to show such a LARGE bias as to try to pretend "deniers" are saying what their side is actually saying. This level of bias really concerns me about how climate scientists treat the data and their methods of avoiding bias. You add to that, the KNOWN modifications or "corrections" to the data which most all seem to show more warming and I start to not only wonder about their predictions! , but their claims on the current temps. Heck, I started believing in AGW. Then I started notice that some of the claims struck me as off, so I looked into the extreme claims. I found those false and started looking deeper. The deeper I looked the more clear it became that this field of science is falling victim to the bandwagon effect....Show more

Glynda Darrin: It warms up the temperature. Your friend is bogus lol

Jill Thomer: If you're talking about environmental conservation 'scientists', let them actually try to prove something with valid research instead of half-truths, hysterical prophecies, and lies. Taking on big business should be a slam-dunk but because conservation-minded scientists have shunned their roles as truth seekers and presenters of unbiased facts in favor of activism they've willfully shed their own credibility for the 'cause'. The cause should be the truth, not winning their side of the debate at all costs. If they did that, there could! be meaningful dialogue that leads to real global action to control pol! lution and hopefully secure the Earth's biosphere, if that's even possible for humans to do.Alas, unfavorable scientific data is minimized or even deliberately hidden by the eco-warriors and the truth therefore becomes lost and obscured. These fools make big business and big polluters look more legitimate with their own propagandizing and they inadvertently slow progress to a crawl, or worse, send us down the wrong path entirely. Just give people the facts and spare us the idiotic posturing and lying; we'd expect that from faceless corporations driven by profit. REAL scientists provide REAL facts and data to validate and prove their theories. Conservationists just don't seem to do that and many people who actually care about the environment, as I do, tune them out with the rest of the white noise. Folks should worry about little things they can do themselves rather than clamor for a magic bullet from snake oil salesmen....Show more

Booker Moros: Pretty much (or its mo! re common version CAGW). You will find very few science realists using it. Raisin Caine says that he doesn't understand why I say that, but then look at his references, he doesn't come up with anyone that actually uses either CACC or CAGW. Deniers are the ones that use those terms.That doesn't mean that we don't expect that catastrophes will occur with AGW, but "catastrophe" has different meanings to different people and isn't even close to being a scientific term, so it's best to leave it out of the descriptive term for the phenomenon....Show more

Foster Koopmann: I have to address this to the person that believes that the greenhouse gasses wear away the ozone layer.You are confusing two myths. The Ozone Layer Myth and the Man Made Global Warming Myth.Long ago, there were so-called scientists that believed the ozone layer was being depleted by flourocarbons. Everybody believed these little windbag scientists and we had to change the way we refrigerate everything! . Now they admit they were wrong. But now we use far more energy to r! efrigerate things because of their bogus claim. Isn't that ironic for the environment?This was long before the Global Warming scare. Ozone layer is not related to greenhouse effect. The Global Warming scare has to do with greenhouse gasses (which also include water vapor, so stop taking showers).Lately, many people maintain that the earth is being overheated by the fact that we are putting out too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is a false assertion since it is in fact getting cooler in the past 10 years. Also, the amount of carbon dioxide that people put out is less that 2% of what nature contributes. Use common sense. Understand that global warming is now a get rich quick scheme for major corporations....Show more

Hobert Dula: Recently a large number of emails and documents were hacked from climate scientist's computers. Many skeptics are quoting excerpts from the emails and stating these prove global warming doesn't exist. Two excerpts in parti! cular have been frequently cited. Could the skeptics please explain, in context, the meaning of these excerpts?1) "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."• What is Nature• What does the term 'trick' mean in this context• What is being referred to by 'real temps'• Which series have they been added to• What decline are they trying to hide• How does this affect the global temperature record• Which aspects of climate science have been called into question2) The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't• To what is the term 'lack of warming' being applied• What point or period in time does 'moment' refer to• What is the wider context of this statement• How does this affect the global temperature record• Which aspects of climate science have been called into questionIn reaching a conc! lusion based on these emails, the sizeable number of skeptics who have ! referenced them must understand both their content and the context. I am therefore confident that many skeptics will provide excellent answers to the questions I have raised and be able to provide credible references or links to validate their responses....Show more

Phil Kuarez: I see catastrophic used by magazines such as the Telegraph and advocacy groups such as Greenpeace. I google catastrophic climate change in Google Scholar and got very few papers with that term in the title. The papers that had that term in the title were in economic journals. Catastrophic has a specific meaning for insurance. There were a few science studies but the term was used for a specific location and event (eg the catastrophic collapse of a lake ecosystem; the catastrophic collapse of the West Antarctic ice shelf). I think it is quite possible that the term would come to mind for many laypeople when reading about potential SLR. That doesn't mean the scientist investigating SLR us! e the term. I've only encountered the term CAGW from a contrarians. The word scientists seem to focus on is Anthropogenic to highlight the role fossil fuel emissions play. This word implies we can act. Perhaps the use of Catastrophic by contrarians is intended to divert us from the word Anthropogenic....Show more

Luis Mellon: It's almost like they have no real understanding of what they are talking about.

Riley Migl: Dishonesty has it's own spirit.Why would people have multiple accounts on yahoo and use them to try to prove a point?Could it be because they are gasping for their last breath?Is their desperation not a sign that they are dishonest at the core?And isn't this vitally necessary desperation proof that their movement is at an end?

Foster Koopmann: Because they're driven by politics. They really have no interest whatsoever in science, facts, or reality. All they care about is "winning", where "winning" means preventing any sort of government ! action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Just like politicians, deni! ers don't care if they have to lie and cheat to "win". To them, the ends always justify the means.

Houston Venezia: We are not the deniers. YOU are the deniers of reality and the accepters of demonic logic as fact. We are not going to allow you to rule the world, nor are we going to adhere to your ridiculous blatherings or instructions on how to deal with a problem that is fake.And even if you believe otherwise, then too bad for you.

Jonathon Labonne: Global warming is most definitely raising the Earths temperature. Scientists are however in debate as to exactly how much it has risen and will continue to rise. Global warming has been caused by a major increase in greenhouse gases which are invisible gases destroying the earth's ozone. The ozone is an invisible layer in the Earth's atmosphere which helps retain heat but also helps prevents the sun's harmful from entering the atmosphere. The greenhouse gasses wear away this layer of protection and more heat becom! es trapped in the atmosphere causing the Earth's overall temperature to rise....Show more

Giovanna Cramblit: It was originally called 'global warming' because the increased level of CO2 and other green house gases trap more of the suns energy, raising the temperature of the atmosphere. On average the earths average temperature will rise. But the effects are much more complex, some places on earth will get warmer, some cooler. So the new term is 'climate change'. Its real, and very scary. We must do everything we can to slow the change.

Kate Baune: No.We can start with those well-known deniers: Greenpeace: "... we need to act to avoid catastrophic climate change." http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaig...Most of these 17,000 links to Google Scholar also need to be examined: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=catastrophi...Or loyal friend Osama bin Laden: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-binladen-cli...Or New Scientist: "We’re set for c! atastrophic climate change that ...": https://www.newscientist.com/arti! cle/dn28393-how-t..."The climate change science presented here (including the IPCC) is agreed that global climate change can be catastrophic, abrupt and irreversible." http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com/catastrop..."Pacific Standard’s “Catastrophic Consequences of Climate Change” is an aggressive, year-long investigation into the devastating effects we can expect from anthropogenic global warmingâ€"and how scholars, activists, diplomats, and legislators can help stave off its most dire consequences." http://www.psmag.com/series/cccc-303Even the IPCC gets in on the act: "Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change" https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/..."if we are to efficiently manage the catastrophic impacts of climate change" https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/UNEP_Opening_Stateme...The Climate Emergency Institute makes the following point: "Scientists in general avoid using the term climate catastrophe or even dangerous climate change.""The scientists refe! r to climate catastrophe as 'rapid temperature increase' , 'abrupt' global climate change, 'irreversible' climate change impacts, and 'large scale singularities'. The IPCC AR4 did refer to catastrophes in the technical report."So, if a scientist mentions one of the above note that he or she is using a euphemism for catastrophic climate change. They are expressing the meaning without actually saying the words. That still counts in my book....Show more

Brian Marquina: "Global warming" started out as "global cooling." We have since learned that the Earth's temperature doesn't go up forever or down forever -- it cycles up and down like everything else.Because of this, global cooling (global warming) supporters are switching to the term "climate change," so they can use it whether the Earth is warming or cooling.Yes, it's a sham.(edit) Global warming/cooling supporters predicted that the Earth would get warmer and warmer from 1998-2008. They were completely wrong. If th! ey can't get the numbers right for ten years out, then why should we tr! ust their estimates for one hundred years out?...Show more

Phillip Modafferi: I can't answer your questions, but I will say this about the hacked emails and what they mean, even though nobody asked me to. Claiming that these emails prove that climate change is not occurring is idiotically illogical. It's like claiming that God does not exist because some priests fondled altar boys.That's the bottom line-and I know there are any number of people who liken belief in AGW to a religion and can probably think up clever tricks to link abusive priests with AGW believers which they will chalk up as some sort of 'victory,' but that really wouldn't have any bearing on the fractured logic imposed-once again-by those who fancy themselves knowledgable...or even experts...in the field of climate science and pronounce conclusions that make no sense to anyone, except for themselves and their equally illogical brethren.From my point of view, there are plenty of issues to contend wit! h when it comes to climate change, and science needs to research, review and analyze, again and again, the data that has and is being assembled. It is and should be a concern when some scientist are caught seeming to fudge the data, but claiming the emails 'debunk' AGW, etc, etc, is simply......moronic.I personally think the proponents of AGW should give hints about the problems with the research to date in the hope that some intelligent discourse about climate science and it's implications environmentally, geopolitically and economically would develop. I for one am delighted when interesting and relevant questions and comments arise from those with whom I might disagree wholeheartedly and have been pleased to read some very interesting observations about the implications of the hacked emails, but this stuff about global warming being 'proven' to be a hoax because of them is nothing but baloney and wishful thinking. Or lack of same.

Horace Escue: Can I play? We a! ll know deniers can't answer these questions.1) Nature is a peer-review! ed scientific journal. One of the most respected in the world."Trick" is being used in the context like "that's a neat trick". In this context, it means a way to solve a problem."Real temps" refers to the instrumental temperature record, which we know is accurate.They've been added to Briffa's tree ring global temperature reconstruction.They were hiding the decline in global temperatures since the 1960s in this tree ring data, known as the "divergence problem" because as we know from the instrumental temperature record, global temperatures rose rapidly over this period.This doesn't affect the global temperature record, it merely reflects it more accurately.No aspects of climate science should be called into question by this email.2) The "lack of warming" refers to the fact that we know from satellite and ocean heat content changes that the Earth's energy imbalance is ~0.9 W/m^2, but we don't know where all of this energy is going. A small percentage is going into surface! air temperatures."At the moment" means we can't account for the energy imbalance with current data.The wider context is that the planet is unquestionably warming. The specific question is how much of that warming is going into heating the air, heating oceans, melting ice, etc.This has no affect whatsoever on the temperature record.This doesn't call any aspects of climate science into question, except perhaps we should put more funding into instrumentation to monitor where the Earth's energy imbalance is going.

Rosalba Lingner: There is the lack of understanding, but many simply have no qualms about lying to try and get what they want. They remind me of Ahmadinejad, who, although quite educated, is continually using the "Big Lie."

Virgil Menefee: Global warming causes global cooling, forest fires, anthropogenic plate tectonics, tsunamis, tornacanes, tornacadoes, water spouts, boll weevils, killer bees, humidity, magnetic field variations, dust storms, and rust ! spots in my rose garden.

Bianca Lannier: We have one anonymous do! nor who states, "this is a denier term intended to ridicule reality (sic)."https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20160...Is this true?...Show more

Sook Hershkowitz: I have to say, skeptics rule!!I am not a denier of Climate Change, but I also do not accept that anthropogenic climate change has been proven. There are scientists who believe they have data/theories/evidence to support both sides of the argument.There are also scientists on both sides of te Big Bang Theory. You will even find scientists who will support a high carb/low protein diet as healthy, as well as the opposite.The fact that scientists disagree over climate change does not make it fake, false, a lie, misrepresented, it just makes it the same as almost any field of scientific inquiry.My personal choice is to err on the side of caution. If we each take responsibility for planting more trees, using less fossil fuel, eating and using locally grown products, we sill see OTHER benefits as well ! as the possible mitigation of any anthropogenic climate change....Show more

Terrell Voltz: Here's the way I understand it.The "nature trick" is the smoothing interpolation subroutine used to massage the data. Not in itself a deception. However, the extra step in the interpolation of interjecting a set of fixed numbers makes it appear as though the data smoothing forced the numbers into the famous "hockey stick" graph. And as I understand it if random numbers are fed into the program instead of temperature data 9 out of 10 times you will get a hockey stick graph. That is troubling to say the least about a computerized climate model we are counting on to set policy. This is also the "series of numbers being added to the actual climate data.The "real temps" and "hide the decline" refer to the use of tree ring data to calculate estimated historical temperatures. The problem arises from about 1960 or 61 when the tree ring data starts to diverge from the actual temper! ature readings. This is the decline that I really believe they are ref! erring to the calculated decline based on tree ring data. Rather than fix the calculations it appears they merely manually loaded in actual temperature readings. Sure that improved the accuracy of their report but at the same time it concealed not only the tree ring decline but the failure of their computerized climate model to accurately reconstruct temperature data.The "lack of current global warming" was the biggest failure of the computerized climate model. According to the model the rate of temperature increase should be directly proportional to the concentration of CO2. The problem was that actual temperatures were not increasing at the rate predicted by the model. It was clear from the actual data that the relationship between CO2 concentration and mean global temperature was more complicated than the computer model and that the current climate model was incorrectly predicting that current temperatures should be higher than they were. That's a big problem it me! ans that the same model used to predict a global castastrophy was incorrect.Aspects called into question.1. It is clear the current computerized climate model is a joke. It is not even correctly predicting current temperatures so it is obviously flawed. So I question the accuracy of the current computerized climate model.2. I question the honesty of the current group of "scientist" conducting the investigation. They seemed more concerned about the political aspects than scientific aspects. Instead of issuing a statement that there is something wrong with their current model and they need to fix it, they manually inserted data, destroyed raw data, and conspired to silence opposing views, and refused to release data and the computer code for their model. None of those actions is very scientific but more typical of government bureaucrats pushing an agenda....Show more