[alancalverd]

Scientists have been studying carbon dioxide molecules for a long time. They know what the properties of a CO2 molecule are, and they know what extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does. Right now, you're not just arguing with me, you're arguing with thousands of scientists with PhD's that agree with me.

Yes, I remember it well. We studied and calculated the IR absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide as undergraduates. And many years after I got my PhD I noticed that the approved A level text either deliberately lied about it, or was written by people who had no idea what they were on about. The CO2 molecule, everywhere in the universe except in A level texts of the 1990s, is rigidly linear and has very few IR transitions. Which is just as well, otherwise the CO2 lasers that we use to treat patients and weld steel every day, wouldn't work.

It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation". 

[alancalverd]

In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.

You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV. 

[Craig W. Thomson]

In the center of a chlorophyll molecule, there's a magnesium atom. It captures photons and the plant uses them to build high energy molecules. When that happens, the photon is converted to mass.

You would do well to review your textbooks on the subject of chemical bonds and photosynthesis. There's rather more to it (so far, about a thousand PhD theses) than that, and a plant would find it difficult to convert a 3 eV visible photon into a massive particle since the smallest (the electron) has a mass of 511,000 eV.

Yeah, I know there's more to it than that. I took a year of Biology for majors my first year in college thinking at the time that would be my major. I fully understand how photosynthesis works, not to mention oxidative phosphorylation, cellular respiration, the citric acid cycle, the proton pump, etc. so maybe your are outclassed on this one. I also know what mass/energy conversion is, and the principle of mass/energy equivalence. I also know about the first and second laws of thermodynamics. So, you can obfuscate the issues and put words in my mouth all day long, but you're not going to change my mind about any of this because I have learned my science correctly.

For example, I never said a photon is turned into a "massive particle" by photosynthesis. I said its energy is converted to a miniscule amount of mass. Completely different statement. If you have a PhD, you ought to be able to recognize that those are two completely different statements.

On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.

[Craig W. Thomson]

It was at that point that I smelled my third rat in this pile of garbage, the first being the IPCC admission that they had no idea how to model the overwhelming effect of atmospheric water, and the second being the earliest publications of the Vostok ice core data, which clearly show temperature leading CO2 concentration in both the upward and downward directions - what we scientists call "causation" as distinct from "correlation".

That's not a rat you smell. It's a rotting baby you threw out with the bath water.

https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ice-core-co2-record-800000-years.jpg

It should be as plain as the nose on your face that neither one of these two graphs is "leading" the other one. In fact, they diverge ever so slightly from time to time, with either one of the graphs being slightly ahead at different points in time. That's because there are a lot of other variables. Maybe there were more tectonic plates over polar regions at some points in time, so there was more albedo from ice. Similarly, if tropical forests drift too far from the equator, they could die off or even become deserts. Deserts move into equatorial regions and become forests, but that takes time, so there is a lag. The face of the earth is changing slowly, but constantly.

So, neither one of those graphs is leading the other, or "causing" the other. If anything, they BOTH "cause each other" to a degree. There are multiple FEEDBACK mechanisms that keep those two graphs more or less in lockstep for millions of years at a time. It's not just simple cause and effect. It's a dynamical system that exhibits chaotic behavior within certain paramaters established by those feedback mechanisms.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=134

We have interrupted those feedback mechanisms by applying combustion to 100 million years worth of solar energy that was previously stored safely away in ancient life forms buried in the earth's crust.

You claim you have a PhD. So, why are you arguing about this? You should know how to do math. You should understand big numbers. You should know what an "exponential function" is. I've got news for you. There are about 7,125,000,000 people on the earth right now. At current rates of population growth and resource consumption, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will no longer have a place to stand. Here's a little slice of that exponential growth curve you can actually see:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

... which reflects this trend:

https://www.google.com/search?q=world+population&oq=world+pop&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2029j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

... and this one:

http://www.igbp.net/images/18.705e080613685f74edb800092/1376383183967/NL78-haberl-fig1.gif

As a certified non-mathematician, I can nevertheless tell you with certainty that those exponents are going to clash with the realities of a finite atmosphere and a finite planet's surface someday. In fact, I say they already are. I'm getting a little tired of arguing with people like you about the most important issue facing the future of our entire species.

[alancalverd]

There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.

[alancalverd]

On the other hand, you said, "Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," which makes me wonder if you are lying about that PhD. That's about the most amateurish misstatement about how photosynthesis works that I have EVER heard, including Sithdarth's at physforum.com two years ago, and his was pretty awful.

6CO₂ + 6H₂O ↔ C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 


*admittedly through a complex series of intermediates, depending on the species, but we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.

[Craig W. Thomson]

The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 

When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.

[Craig W. Thomson]

*we physicists are simple folk, more concerned with the beginning and end than the bit in the middle.

Are you sure you're a physicist? In my estimation as a layman, it's ALL important. To the best of my knowledge, real physicists operate according to the Scientific Method, which does NOT include sweeping the "bits in the middle" under a rug.

To cite a specific example, scientists can emit a photon from a device, and that photon can hit a detector, which marks the "beginning" and "end" of the photon's "life," but it's the "bits in the middle" that concern physicists, where non-locality and wave characteristics emerge as the photon passes though one or two slits. They put all those slits and half-mirrored surfaces in between the emitter and detector specifically to examine the "bits in the middle" between the emission and detection of the photon ...

Also, "simple folk" like Michelson and Morley built an interferometer while everyone else was riding around in covered wagons. They were looking for the unseen "bits in the middle" known as aether ...

[Tim the Plumber]

There is no doubt that there are far too many people on the planet, and our descendants will drown in their own excrement if we don't stop reproducing. That is indeed the most important problem facing humanity, and the one which we can solve absolutely, for ever, at no cost, and with enormous benefit to ourselves, every succeeding generation, and every other species, by doing nothing.

But there is no limit to human stupidity and gullibility. We are doomed.

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

[not allowed to ppost video. Type in TED talks overpopulation Hans Rosling.

Watch the video.

Spreading this evil idea that there is a problem with human population is plain evil.

[Tim the Plumber]

The forward reaction is driven by sunlight*, and the reverse reaction generates heat or mechanical energy*, on my planet. How does yours work? 

When I got up this morning, there was a message in my inbox from you asking me in your "capacity as moderator" to back off the personal insults in the forum, and here you are implying I'm from another planet. What a total hypocrite. I'm used to getting flamed and trolled, but not by a moderator.

Regardless, mass/energy conversion works the same everywhere. It's an invariance thing, in case "simple folk" were not aware of that.

"Trees convert mass of carbon dioxide and water to mass of tree," apparently, that's how it works on your planet. If I said that, I would get trolled by just about everyone. Maybe your moderator position is going to your head. Is that what you do here? Spout whatever scientific mumbo jumbo you like, then kick out indignant people who recognize that burning a hundred million years of fossil fuels causes a rise in global temperatures?

I don't care what you "believe." Climate change is the number one threat to our species. I've watched the problem getting worse for more than 25 years. I've watched Jeremy Rifkin's predictions about climate change fall like dominoes. I'm tired of skeptics controlling the conversation. I believe in science, not the opinions of moderators. You can cut off my free speech and ban me if you like. That doesn't change the fact that you're roughly half right about much of what you've said in this thread.

"Breathing does not cause death," weakest analogy ever. That's not an opinion. Not only did I take a year of Biology for majors in college, where I learned about all the "bits in between" of photosynthesis, I actually took a logic course as well.

What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.

[Craig W. Thomson]

What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.

Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015   YEAR   ANOMALY °C   ANOMALY °F
1   2015   0.90   1.62
2   2014   0.74   1.33
3   2010   0.70   1.26
4   2013   0.66   1.19
5   2005   0.65   1.17
6 (tie)   1998   0.63   1.13
6 (tie)   2009   0.63   1.13
8   2012   0.62   1.12
9 (tie)   2003   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2006   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2007   0.61   1.10
12   2002   0.60   1.08
13 (tie)   2004   0.57   1.03
13 (tie)   2011   0.57   1.03
15 (tie)   2001   0.54   0.97
15 (tie)   2008   0.54   0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.

[Tim the Plumber]

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand. That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Can you at all justify that with actual numbers? I mean we have used about 2 cubic kilometers of oil. That is a very small number compared to the volume of the earth so any talk about mining down to the core is drivel. Obviously.

Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Yes, I fully understand the supply and consumption issues of oil. Indeed we have used the very easy stuff. We now have to work for it. In the 17th century coal was dug up out of the fields around Sheffield, then they had to keep going deeper as the easy stuff was used. Coal is now cheaper at the point of consumption than ever. This is due to the cheapness of transport and the size and effiency of all those open cast mines in places like South Africa and Austrailia.

Are you still a believer in peak oil even when the 100% confident predictions of it running out have just been proven to be drivel?? What will it ever take for you to let go of your favorite dooms-day scenario?

Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita.

And yet the price in real terms keeps getting cheaper. Today we use steel as a very cheap building material, no problem. This is due to our increased ability to get the stuff out of the ground which is due to increased population, increased wealth and better technology which is due to increased population with increased wealth solving problems.

Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.

And shortly, this century, we will be mining the asteroids of the solar system and have more resources than we can possibly use in the next thousand years. Door opens...

[Tim the Plumber]

What has got worse in the last 18 years of not warming?

Mod, please leave this person on as he does a good job of representing the sort of drivel that we are being fed by those with an agenda.

Bull, you're the one with the agenda. You obviously care more about economics and personal advancement than you care about the future of the human race.

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

RANK
1 = WARMEST
PERIOD OF RECORD: 1880–2015   YEAR   ANOMALY °C   ANOMALY °F
1   2015   0.90   1.62
2   2014   0.74   1.33
3   2010   0.70   1.26
4   2013   0.66   1.19
5   2005   0.65   1.17
6 (tie)   1998   0.63   1.13
6 (tie)   2009   0.63   1.13
8   2012   0.62   1.12
9 (tie)   2003   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2006   0.61   1.10
9 (tie)   2007   0.61   1.10
12   2002   0.60   1.08
13 (tie)   2004   0.57   1.03
13 (tie)   2011   0.57   1.03
15 (tie)   2001   0.54   0.97
15 (tie)   2008   0.54   0.97

That's what has changed in the last 18 years. Know what hasn't changed? The scientific and mathematical ignorance and personal arrogance of climate change skeptics like yourself. Your whole take on climate science is one of Confirmation Bias. You WANT to see no climate change in the data. You ignore empirical evidence. You use weak analogies. You mine and extract information and facts that fits your argument, discarding the rest. In short, you don't come to your conclusions by using the Scientific Method. That's your own personal problem. You don't have the right to take down the rest of the human race with you, and I will fight you clowns until my last breath, even if it contains mostly CO2.

I agree that the temperature of the world is higher now than it was in 1979.

Do you deny that there has been no significant warming since 1998?

In light of the lack of warming over the last 18 years how have you modified your expectations of future warming? Can we safely discout the top half of the IPCC's predictions? If so what is ther to worry about?

I do not wish to see no warming. I think it would be a better world for humanity if it was slightly warmer. +2c I think would be nice. Beyond that I do not know and would like to see what +2c would do before I formed my opinion.

You have totally made up your mind. You do not need to consider data. Show this to be wrong by answering my questions.

[Jolly]

There are many more deciduous trees in the northern hemisphere than in the southern, and they absorb huge amounts of CO2 in the summer months.

So why does the Mauna Loa data show exactly the opposite?

It does not say the opposite. See the attached image, which shows the greatest decline (rate) in CO₂ concentration during the July and August, and the greatest increase (rate) during December and January.

Referencing the chart, there are a lot of earthquakes in the first part of the year 2008, less wild fires tho.

Looking at this
 Magnitude Ranging Between
              2000  2001   2002  2003 2004  2005  2006      2007 2008  2009     2010

Total       1505     1361 1341    1358    1672    1844    1865    2270    1948    2057    2136

There is a steady increase in activity, how much CO2 is released with earth quakes? Do we have any estimates on that. I'm just taking a breif look but there seems to be a connection.

Found this
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275539054_Positive_correlation_between_CO2_daily_peaks_and_micro-earthquakes_occurrence_in_deep_fault-caves_an_empirical_model

CONCLUSIONS
1. There is a positive   correlation   between   micro-earthquakes  (M<2.5)  and  atmospheric  anomalies  within   the   Benis   fault-cave.   Seismic   events   are   
related  to  sharp  daily  increase  in  atmospheric  CO2(>20 ppm).

2.
The area of influence for this gas mobilisation is up to 60 km and southward of the pit cave.

3.Furthermore,   there   is   an   empirical   relationship between  the  concentration  of  CO2 emission  and 
the  distance  of  the  epicentre,  for  the  geological units of the Betic Range.

[Jolly]

Your are wrong.

There is plenty of room for everybody.

There are plenty of resources for everybody.

No, that's false. Again, at current levels of resource comsumption and population growth, we will have mined the earth to its core in about 500 years and will have nowhere left to stand.

Ok I am not trying to defend any position but this statement, I find rather exagerated, you are not allowing in your statement room for new technologies, changes in behaviour, and better use and re use of materials.

That is a mathematical and physical impossiblility. Finite means finite. The earth's surface, atmosphere and resources are finite.

Surely, but actually to a degree so are humans, waste is a bigger issue then anything, and mis-allocation of resourses, if we could be bothered to actually learn how to recycle and reuse everything we have already extracted, while sustaining our population levels, we potencionally would not need to mine at all.   

Do you know what "inflation" is? Ever wonder why things keep getting more expensive? It's not like the days of the Beverly Hillbillies anymore. You can't find crude oil bubbling right up out of the ground. Most of the stuff that's easy and cheap to get at has been used. Now we have to resort to looking for oil two miles under the Gulf of Mexico with robots and trying to get oil out of shale by dangerous fracking, for example. That's expensive. When that's gone, oil is going to be even harder to find. This is called "scarcity." When supply is less than demand, price goes up. When what is demanded is more difficult to retrieve and process, that makes it even more expensive. That's inflation in a nutshell. Our economy runs on resources that are becoming more scarce.

Yet oil is cheeper then ever and we are all suffering in an ecconomy of deflation. We need to get off oil, but the power industry is not interested in that happening. Still Algie tanks can produce oil and gas, with a good recycling systems we could re-use what we have and produce the difference, with no need for drilling. There are better energy systems comming also, Like Molton Salt ractors that produce no nuclear waste and use almost 100% of there energy value. Research into fungus offers a serious opportunity to allow cleaning and renaturalisation of poluted habitates. 

Inflation never goes the other way because resources never become less scarce when population continues to grow and consume more resources per capita. Our planet's surface is NOT growing with us, you know. Here's how silly your argument is. You could have a 5,000 square foot home equipped with the best air conditioner on the market, but if you invite about 1,000 people over, and have them all light a single candle, it's going to be stifling and cramped in that house in no time flat, 5,000 people and you won't have enough room. That's because, like the Earth's surface, your house is finite. Unlike the Earth, your house has a door to let people leave whenever they want, and windows to let in some fresh air.

Industry is more to blame then humanity, industry is only thinking about it own interests and has been consistenly supressing technologies they feel threaten their market share. People can only consume what they are offered, and the offers available are limited by the producers, by design. Big business is far more to blame for today situation then the populations they impose themselves on.
Big fishing fleets put all the small guys out of business and over fish. Monsanto helped destroy small local milk farmers, with it's hormone products to produce more milk- a product that allows farmers to gain more milk from its cows, when at the time this was first released there was already too much milk on the market.
Subsidised farming From Europe and America has invaded and destroyed local farming in Africa by under cutting all the local producers: in the same vain of market domination.
Big companies are far more to blame for enviromental and resourse issues we face, the bigger they are the bigger the exturnalities get. Big business is also at the same time getting laws and regulations past that protect them and their market share and as such work to prevent smaller producers entering the marklet place. Seems as tho all companies are seeking the the too big to fail position- it's not free market, it's not capitalist, some kinda werid productionist tyranny.

[alancalverd]

Sixteen Warmest Years (1880–2015)
The following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually-averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 16 (two tied at #15) warmest years on record.

Fascinating. Nobody had been to the North Pole, the top of Everest, or measured any temperatures in continental Antarctica in 1880. International thermometry was not usefully standardised until 1920 - indeed nobody was really interested in accurate ground surface temperature measurement unitl the advent of the aeroplane, and I'd be particularly interested to know how your authoritatve source measured the mean surface temperatrure of the Pacific Ocean.

Being a pernickety sort (i.e. a physicist), I always ask people how they defined the parameter they are talking about, and how they measured it. Never had an answer for "global mean temperature" until 1970, and even the satellite data has been "corrected" several times since - remarkably, always towards the predicted value of the climate scaremongers!

[JoeBrown]

Fascinating. Nobody had been to the North Pole, the top of Everest, or measured any temperatures in continental Antarctica in 1880. International thermometry was not usefully standardised until 1920 - indeed nobody was really interested in accurate ground surface temperature measurement unitl the advent of the aeroplane, and I'd be particularly interested to know how your authoritatve source measured the mean surface temperatrure of the Pacific Ocean.

Being a pernickety sort (i.e. a physicist), I always ask people how they defined the parameter they are talking about, and how they measured it. Never had an answer for "global mean temperature" until 1970, and even the satellite data has been "corrected" several times since - remarkably, always towards the predicted value of the climate scaremongers!

Funny thing bout the poles, they used to keep pretty good record.  Now that the north pole is disappearing, I guess it's  lucky we core it ahead of time.

NASA runs down what how the massaged the numbers to keep 'em in line with projections, should you actually wish to know what the did.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

But since they did it to "keep in line w/predictions" why bother. [O8)]

[puppypower]

Thanks for your comment. However, CO2 actually surpassed that mark before.

DOH,

Didn't realize my search returned an article from a year ago.  I heard in the news that February 2016 was the warmest month on record.  Following, January's record breaking and a few months late last year....

Saw the correlation I sought, instead of paying attention to the date on the article in question I leaped to insert my foot, anatomically inappropriately

The string of record breaking warm months correlating to an persistently increasing CO² content, makes it hard to not want to SHOUT at the deniers.

Tried to delete my post before it was forever enshrined in Cyberspace, alas, I was too slow   Fortunate or not the correlation still stands  []

One thing that needs to be said, is the record books for real time weather and real time climate change only go back 150 years in some places and 100 years in more places. The earth, on the other hand is billions of years old.

For those who wish to believe, when the experts say this is the hottest year on record many people will assume this means hottest of all time; billions of years not 100 years. Most layman assume science has all the answers, it knows about the long term past, it does not lie or spin, therefore this is the hottest it has ever been. The consensus says so, therefore they did all the research so they need to be right and I don;t have to check.

The hard reality is there are records of climate change and temperature, from the long term past that is stored in ice, soil and rock. People have heard about core samples. The hottest on record, sort of implies the hottest on all the records. This is a deliberate play on words. One has to research the past to fully understand the record they are talking about, is not tiny and not a good representation of all the earth's records. It is too small a period of time. This omission of all the facts, and the presentation of the finite set of facts, as the record, causes many people to infer, wrongly. This is called spin. Spin is why there is a political divide; subjective, in what should objective science.

This political divide follows a political template. It works on the same people, time and again. For example, the hottest on record is like saying the top 1% richest people of the USA are responsible of all the evils of the country. This statement lumps all the data and explains it based on the behavior of a few. It does not use all the records of all the people, but it cheery picks one set of records to define the whole. Does this schema sound familiar? All whites, males, straights are racists, sexist and homophobes therefore they need to be punished. You point to a few data records and generalized this to means all the data and records.

A reasonable person will not deny there are some evil rich; narrow data record says warmest. But the reasonable person also knows there are very generous rich people, like Bill Gates; longer data record shows exceptions. If I argue against the misleading premise all rich are evil, I would be called a denier, since they can show me a few data of evil rich. I will say, I can show you data of generous rich, but this will be called irresponsible.

The consensus of science is now in the position to squander the most money and resources they ever had; evil rich. Like the liberals have said, there are no good rich in this little world, since they have all been driven away, with no voice and resources. It has become a self for filling prophesy. This is not different from the scoundrels in the racist and sexist industries.

[alancalverd]

Just to set the record straight, literally

1. Until 1903 (Wright Brothers), accurate land surface temperature was of little interest and records are, to say the least, sparse.

2. Until the UK National Physical Laboratory was established in 1900, there was no international calibration service for thermometers, and the first credible comparison of national standards took place in 1923.

3. The North Pole was not reached until 1909, the South Pole 1911. Temperature measurements above the polar ice caps was, at best, sketchy before 1955.

4. Even in the 20th century, we have very little temperature data in central Africa, South America, anywhere more than 100 miles offshore, and generally above 10,000 ft.

5. Most of the reliable historic temperature data comes from airfields. Until the 1950s, there was an ever-increasing number of grass airfields, with a few low buildings. The number has decreased steadily since then, and few of the old military strips continue to keep records - private club aircraft are less critically loaded than WWII bombers and the radio weather forecasts are very good. The remaining reporting stations are increasingly major airports and permament military stations with huge concrete runways and lots of buildings - unsurprisingly, a lot hotter than the surrounding countryside!

6. Ocean surface temperature and most land surface temperatures were, frankly, unknown until the advent of satellite imaging in the 1970s. Curiously, although it is perfectly possible to calibrate such instruments to within 0.01 degree accuracy before launch, climate "scientists" feel it necessary to publish frequent "corrections"  to historic satellite data, all of which tend, remarkably, to fit the "predictive model" of the day.

7. A dead hippopotamus cannot lie. Finding the bones of several such animals in Cambridgeshire suggests that this part of the world, at least, was a heck of a lot warmer a few thousand years ago. Knife marks on the bones suggest human activity, and I very much doubt that anyone was importing hippo thighs for fun and profit.