What's your opinion of the little thingy we've gotten ourselves into?

Well you know what they say... if you don't like the climate, just wait thirty years.

P.S. It's not that I don't have confidence in my sense of wit but I can't really determine if my above saying is an original of mine or if I subconsciously heard it somewhere else. If you can find prior attribution, please feel free to crush my morale.

Satellite temperature measurements for the past 35 years shows a warming trend of 0.14 Celsius (that's a 35 year trend for those who don't understand). Here it is if you want to see it : http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2l...

Actual temperature data speaks volumes.

-------------------------------------

No opinion needed.

------------------------------------

Jeff M - I use this data because your data is misleading. Atmospheric temperature readings by satellite are much more accurate and are confirmed by weather balloon data. Mechanically measured surface data is compelling, but it's well known that the surface is much more sensitive to heat radiation from the sun and is sparsely measured compared to available land area that can be measured. Satellites can take millions of measurements on a daily basis and throughout the day without the interference of heat islands or other intruding variables. Satellites and weather balloon data is the best source in gaining a true perspective on temperatures.

-------------------------------------

I'll consider Roy Spencer's take on the temperature anomalies over any other information concerning temperature readings. Satellites can also show that the biomass of the planet has grown extensively which could possibly mean that CO2 is not so much of the villain here on planet Earth.

I'll maintain my biased outlook until there is more compelling evidence that shows CO2 is more of a detriment to society.

:-)

--------------------------------------

Jeff M - I find it funny that you use data collected over a 20 year period to prove your point when referring to the climate as a whole. Overall temperature gradients over an extended time period are the compelling evidence that shows how temperatures are affecting the planet. We continually get questions regarding weather events as proof of anthropogenic climate change. Getting accurate overall temperature readings and finding a trust in where they come from is very important. Spencer has shown he is very reliable in his analogies.

--------------------------------------

Jeff M - Why is it you think that you have a monopoly on public information? ... and why does it matter where I got the figures from? They are from Roy Spencer and they are from satellite data. You provided a link that showed tropical warming, yet you failed to show that this region also shows an increase in biomass during that same time period. A huge biomass increase.

Pat: You have provided data. but in order to see why they differ you are going to have to go into it a lot deeper than that. Here is the graph using the plots.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

The RSS data, and the satellite data both associated temperatures records use, measure the entire lower troposphere.

http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_descrip...

And the warming of the tropical free troposphere is well established.

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.to...

Even Patrick Micheals acknowledges this.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...

Why are you trying to compare the two? They measure two different things.

Pat: You are using exactly the same source and link I use. you actually, more than likely, got that link from me. I use it in some of my responses. Weather balloon data is extremely faulty. If you had actually looked into this you would know that. And satellite data measures the entire lower troposphere. You are comparing lower tropospheric measurements, that are known to have fluctuations due to things such as ENSO, with surface measurements. They measure tow different things, as stated previously.

If you are worried about so called man-made Climate Change, don't be, it's a complete SCAM and here's a small amount of the proof.

Man-made Global Warming advocates have no empirical science to back their claim. And their advocacy movement has been mired in scandal since its beginning. Here are some things you should know:

1) The Earth has been both much warmer and much colder in the distant past, long before the industrial age. Climate is indeed changing, but it has always changed and probably always will. These are obviously natural cycles that man does not and cannot control.

2) Global Warming alarmists have been caught in one lie after another. Huge scandals have been continuously revealed since the early 1980’s when the campaign began. Some of these are listed below:

3) Al Gore’s movie "An Inconvenient Truth" was full of bald faced lies. Like the Polar Bears were drowning, or the Ice Caps were melting, or the oceans were rising --- all lies. In fact a court of England ruled the movie was so flawed that it could not be shown to school children without a disclaimer.

4) The ClimateGate affair exposed the utter corruption of the Warmist community with their exposed emails speaking of how they intended to “hide the decline” and how to manipulate data and the peer-review process in their favor.

5) Then there is the fact that the globe isn’t even warming anymore and the small amount of warming experienced from the 1900’s to 2013 timeframe was negligible and well within the envelope of normal.

6) During this same period of marginal warming, scientists also noticed that other planets in our solar system were warming. What do these planets have in common ? --- the Sun.

7) Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit, the Guru and High Priest of Global Warming himself admitted there has been no statistically significant warming. If anyone on the planet would have been aware of statistically significant warming it would have been Phil Jones and he admitted there has been none. (Game Over)

8) Warmists like Al Gore refuse to engage in any formal debate on the issue. That’s because on the few occasions Warmist have debated openly, they lose, and they lose big. Lord Monckton utterly destroys them time and time again.

9) Al Gore and other Warmists have stated clearly that they want to make CO2 the object of a global tax. CO2 is the perfect object for their revenue purposes because you literally cannot live without making CO2, after all, we exhale it. And current science has shown clearly that there is no correlation between the planet’s mean temperature and the concentration of CO2 in the air. Demonizing CO2 is all about the tax dollars, and that’s all its about.

See the scam for what it is and don’t believe any of it.

Polar Bears are doing fine:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/190805/2...

Phil Jones admits NO statistically significant warming

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/1...

35 major errors in Al Gore’s movie

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

Court rules Al Gore’s movie unfit without disclaimer (11 major errors reviewed)

http://creation.com/al-gores-inconvenien...

Graphs showing that CO2 does NOT drive Temperature

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/...

Warming on Mars -- and Jupiter, Pluto, Neptune

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?ne...

Lord Monckton destroys Warmist in debate (Video)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...

For the full story on the man-made Global Warming scam watch these:

The Great Global Warming Swindle