Global warming is a hoax! They've been fabricating temperature data!

[Kharakov]

The conservatives are really overcompensating for the coming adjustment of planetary orbits.

 

[boneyard bill]

bilby writes:

Can you name a single climate change skeptic within the climate science profession? I know there are reams of geologists, physicists, engineers and mathematicians who have come out as climate skeptics; but I am not aware of any climatologists - people who are currently both qualified in, and working in, the field of climatology - who have done so. I assume that there are a handful of such people, because there are bound to be nutters and contrarians in any large enough group; but I can't think of a single one in this case. Certainly they are a tiny minority in the field.

Oh there are many climate skeptics in the climate science field. You obviously haven't made much effort. Indeed, I would suggest that you have made no effort at all to learn who they are. Among the most prominent is Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT who is the world's leading expert on cloud formation. Then there Dr. Akasofu of the University of Fairbanks (now retired) who was the world's leading expert on arctic climate. And then there are Dr. John Cristy and Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who invented the method for recovering temperature from satellite data although Dr. Spencer was at NASA Huntsville at the time. There's also Dr. Roger Pielke at the U. of Colorado or Colorado State, I can't remember which. That's off the top of my head with a little research I could come up with quite a few more. But let me turn the tables. How may pro-global climate scientists can YOU name.

The cause of warming is completely uncontroversial; Carbon Dioxide prevents heat from being re-radiated from the Earth into space. The more of it there is, the greater the effect. That is simple physics, and is totally uncontroversial.

Thank for demonstrating the main point of my post by showing how misinformed you are. Actually, you statement is factually correct but wildly misleading regarding the global warming controversy. A doubling C02 in the atmosphere would produce a warming of about 1 degree C. That doubling takes about a hundred years so there is absolutely nothing alarming about it. That is known as a climate forcing. What global warming alarmists are claiming is that that forcing will also produce feedback effects. They are claiming that the small forcing will produce evaporation of water and the water vapor will produce yet more warming. The forcing is uncontroversial but the feedback effects are definitely crucial to the issue and they are entirely theoretical and depend upon the effects cloud formation. The is where Dr. Lindzen dissents. He argues that we do not enough about cloud formation to form any strong opinion (cloud formation cannot be modeled in computers). But says the more likely effect to water vapor feedback would be negative, not positive. Thus he estimates the C02 plus feedback would produce a climate sensitivity (the effect of a doubling of C02) of about .3 degree C. while the global warming alarmists are claiming a climate sensitivity ten times as high or 3 degrees C. I'll bet you haven't heard anything about that on the media have you?

By the way, there has been no observable increase in the hydrological cycle which you would expect if the water vapor feedback were positive and significant.

Cristy and Spencer observe that tropospheric temperatures are consistently lower that surface temperature measurements. This is exactly the opposite of what the C02 theory predicts. When a theory makes predictions that are not subsequently observed we usually consider that theory to be falsified. Isn't that supposed to be the scientific method?

That CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution is a simple matter of record.

Yes. C02 has risen consistently, but temperature has not! Remember those predictions of a new Ice Age back in the seventies? Well, you're probably too young. But I am not. There is very little correlation between C02 growth and temperature increases. C02 growth has been consistently upward but temperatures have been up and down. But back in the sixties and seventies, when temperatures were declining, C02 was increasing at about the same rate that it is now. From about 1975 until 1998 the temperature trend was generally upward, but since 1998 temperatures have pretty much flat-lined.

 

[boneyard bill]

bilby writes:

Given the relatively simple solutions that are available - such as replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear plants at the end of their working life - and given that a global catastrophe is something we should avoid if at all possible, the whole issue is a no-brainer; we should avoid finding out the hard way just how bad it can be, and should avoid adding more CO2 than is absolutely necessary to the atmosphere until we are able to get a clear and definitive idea of what the effects of warming are likely to be.

The solutions are not nearly as simple as you suggest. First of all, replacing coal with nuclear power is hardly a "simple" alternative. Nuclear power has very difficult issues. Their still trying to put out fires and cool the reactor a Fukushima. Then there's the problem of the storage of nuclear waste. But aside from that, you have the additional problem that it wouldn't be enough. We spew C02 into the atmosphere in many more ways than with coal-fired electricity generators. There's the automobile for one. And then there's manufacturing. Did I mention the Third World? That's where most of the growth in occurring. Indeed, some critics of global warming, especially from the left, argue that effects of global warming would be far less than the effects of depriving poor countries of the energy needed for development because problems of malnutrition and disease are the major cause of premature death in those countries.

 

[bilby]

bilby writes:



Oh there are many climate skeptics in the climate science field. You obviously haven't made much effort. Indeed, I would suggest that you have made no effort at all to learn who they are. Among the most prominent is Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT who is the world's leading expert on cloud formation. Then there Dr. Akasofu of the University of Fairbanks (now retired) who was the world's leading expert on arctic climate. And then there are Dr. John Cristy and Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who invented the method for recovering temperature from satellite data although Dr. Spencer was at NASA Huntsville at the time. There's also Dr. Roger Pielke at the U. of Colorado or Colorado State, I can't remember which. That's off the top of my head with a little research I could come up with quite a few more. But let me turn the tables. How may pro-global climate scientists can YOU name.

The cause of warming is completely uncontroversial; Carbon Dioxide prevents heat from being re-radiated from the Earth into space. The more of it there is, the greater the effect. That is simple physics, and is totally uncontroversial.

Thank for demonstrating the main point of my post by showing how misinformed you are. Actually, you statement is factually correct but wildly misleading regarding the global warming controversy. A doubling C02 in the atmosphere would produce a warming of about 1 degree C. That doubling takes about a hundred years so there is absolutely nothing alarming about it. That is known as a climate forcing. What global warming alarmists are claiming is that that forcing will also produce feedback effects. They are claiming that the small forcing will produce evaporation of water and the water vapor will produce yet more warming. The forcing is uncontroversial but the feedback effects are definitely crucial to the issue and they are entirely theoretical and depend upon the effects cloud formation. The is where Dr. Lindzen dissents. He argues that we do not enough about cloud formation to form any strong opinion (cloud formation cannot be modeled in computers). But says the more likely effect to water vapor feedback would be negative, not positive. Thus he estimates the C02 plus feedback would produce a climate sensitivity (the effect of a doubling of C02) of about .3 degree C. while the global warming alarmists are claiming a climate sensitivity ten times as high or 3 degrees C. I'll bet you haven't heard anything about that on the media have you?

By the way, there has been no observable increase in the hydrological cycle which you would expect if the water vapor feedback were positive and significant.

Cristy and Spencer observe that tropospheric temperatures are consistently lower that surface temperature measurements. This is exactly the opposite of what the C02 theory predicts. When a theory makes predictions that are not subsequently observed we usually consider that theory to be falsified. Isn't that supposed to be the scientific method?

That CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution is a simple matter of record.

Yes. C02 has risen consistently, but temperature has not! Remember those predictions of a new Ice Age back in the seventies? Well, you're probably too young. But I am not. There is very little correlation between C02 growth and temperature increases. C02 growth has been consistently upward but temperatures have been up and down. But back in the sixties and seventies, when temperatures were declining, C02 was increasing at about the same rate that it is now. From about 1975 until 1998 the temperature trend was generally upward, but since 1998 temperatures have pretty much flat-lined.

Well I was going to write a detailed rebuttal; but as your entire response is misguided tripe, including your presumption about my age, I simply can't be bothered.

You even say "Actually, you (sic) statement is factually correct"; And yet apparently saying something that is factually correct shows me to be "misinformed". I am really disinterested in continuing a discussion that involves my being told that I am wrong by someone who is arguing against things they think I ought to have said, even though they accept that what I actually did say is correct. Save it for the Politics forum.

 

[dystopian]

bilby writes:



Oh there are many climate skeptics in the climate science field. You obviously haven't made much effort. Indeed, I would suggest that you have made no effort at all to learn who they are. Among the most prominent is Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT who is the world's leading expert on cloud formation.

World's leading expert on cloud formation? Ehhh... you base this on what, exactly? The work he did in the 60's? I don't think the term 'world's leading expert' means what you think it does. Besides, the man is retired and his relevant arguments pretty much all defeated. ( https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm )

Then there Dr. Akasofu of the University of Fairbanks (now retired) who was the world's leading expert on arctic climate.

Again this terminology "world's leading expert". Yes, these are prominent scientists; stop trying to prop them up by declaring them "world leading". As for his arguments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-akasofu.html

And then there are Dr. John Cristy and Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who invented the method for recovering temperature from satellite data although Dr. Spencer was at NASA Huntsville at the time. There's also Dr. Roger Pielke at the U. of Colorado or Colorado State, I can't remember which. That's off the top of my head with a little research I could come up with quite a few more. But let me turn the tables.

Well, at least you're not claiming them to be world leading.

How may pro-global climate scientists can YOU name.

A few thousand at least, if I were allowed to use google the way you have and thought arguments from authority were valid.

 

[4321lynx]

bilby writes:

Given the relatively simple solutions that are available - such as replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear plants at the end of their working life - and given that a global catastrophe is something we should avoid if at all possible, the whole issue is a no-brainer; we should avoid finding out the hard way just how bad it can be, and should avoid adding more CO2 than is absolutely necessary to the atmosphere until we are able to get a clear and definitive idea of what the effects of warming are likely to be.

The solutions are not nearly as simple as you suggest. First of all, replacing coal with nuclear power is hardly a "simple" alternative. Nuclear power has very difficult issues. Their still trying to put out fires and cool the reactor a Fukushima. Then there's the problem of the storage of nuclear waste. But aside from that, you have the additional problem that it wouldn't be enough. We spew C02 into the atmosphere in many more ways than with coal-fired electricity generators. There's the automobile for one. And then there's manufacturing. Did I mention the Third World? That's where most of the growth in occurring. Indeed, some critics of global warming, especially from the left, argue that effects of global warming would be far less than the effects of depriving poor countries of the energy needed for development because problems of malnutrition and disease are the major cause of premature death in those countries.

No Fukushima or Chernobyl in France and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

France was the leader in the export of electricity in 2008: 48 TWh followed by Paraguay 46 TWh and Canada 32 TWh

The USA cannot do that??? Cannot do what France has done??? Oh, my.

Probably should not build any nuclear plants on the San Andres fault line, or in "sink hole" liable places ie ??most of Florida, I would grant you that. But with plentiful electricity perhaps you could charge electric cars everywhere and electrify your railways, and perhaps all those diesel trucks too.

 

[boneyard bill]

bilby writes:



Oh there are many climate skeptics in the climate science field. You obviously haven't made much effort. Indeed, I would suggest that you have made no effort at all to learn who they are. Among the most prominent is Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT who is the world's leading expert on cloud formation. Then there Dr. Akasofu of the University of Fairbanks (now retired) who was the world's leading expert on arctic climate. And then there are Dr. John Cristy and Dr. Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama in Huntsville who invented the method for recovering temperature from satellite data although Dr. Spencer was at NASA Huntsville at the time. There's also Dr. Roger Pielke at the U. of Colorado or Colorado State, I can't remember which. That's off the top of my head with a little research I could come up with quite a few more. But let me turn the tables. How may pro-global climate scientists can YOU name.





Thank for demonstrating the main point of my post by showing how misinformed you are. Actually, you statement is factually correct but wildly misleading regarding the global warming controversy. A doubling C02 in the atmosphere would produce a warming of about 1 degree C. That doubling takes about a hundred years so there is absolutely nothing alarming about it. That is known as a climate forcing. What global warming alarmists are claiming is that that forcing will also produce feedback effects. They are claiming that the small forcing will produce evaporation of water and the water vapor will produce yet more warming. The forcing is uncontroversial but the feedback effects are definitely crucial to the issue and they are entirely theoretical and depend upon the effects cloud formation. The is where Dr. Lindzen dissents. He argues that we do not enough about cloud formation to form any strong opinion (cloud formation cannot be modeled in computers). But says the more likely effect to water vapor feedback would be negative, not positive. Thus he estimates the C02 plus feedback would produce a climate sensitivity (the effect of a doubling of C02) of about .3 degree C. while the global warming alarmists are claiming a climate sensitivity ten times as high or 3 degrees C. I'll bet you haven't heard anything about that on the media have you?

By the way, there has been no observable increase in the hydrological cycle which you would expect if the water vapor feedback were positive and significant.

Cristy and Spencer observe that tropospheric temperatures are consistently lower that surface temperature measurements. This is exactly the opposite of what the C02 theory predicts. When a theory makes predictions that are not subsequently observed we usually consider that theory to be falsified. Isn't that supposed to be the scientific method?

That CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has increased since the industrial revolution is a simple matter of record.

Yes. C02 has risen consistently, but temperature has not! Remember those predictions of a new Ice Age back in the seventies? Well, you're probably too young. But I am not. There is very little correlation between C02 growth and temperature increases. C02 growth has been consistently upward but temperatures have been up and down. But back in the sixties and seventies, when temperatures were declining, C02 was increasing at about the same rate that it is now. From about 1975 until 1998 the temperature trend was generally upward, but since 1998 temperatures have pretty much flat-lined.

Well I was going to write a detailed rebuttal; but as your entire response is misguided tripe, including your presumption about my age, I simply can't be bothered.

You even say "Actually, you (sic) statement is factually correct"; And yet apparently saying something that is factually correct shows me to be "misinformed". I am really disinterested in continuing a discussion that involves my being told that I am wrong by someone who is arguing against things they think I ought to have said, even though they accept that what I actually did say is correct. Save it for the Politics forum.

A complete cop-out. People make factually correct statements that are extremely misleading every day of the week. I raise serious questions that you have chosen not to address. It doesn't surprise me. It happens almost every time I discuss this issue.

 

[Narapoia]

To all the sceptics in the room - do you not find it worrying that Exxon has understood and accepted AGW/climate change - since 1981? I mean I understand that some of you believe there's some great big giant academic conspiracy amongst scientists - or something. But What about the scientists and people that work in the oil industry? Are they part of it too?

You could argue that they are under pressure from the press and the modern environmental movement now and so pay lip service to it - that I could understand. However, the article shows that it was a consideration a generation ago - from internal company communications.

The email (Recent email describing the situation in 1981) from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia.

 

[Narapoia]

Yes. C02 has risen consistently, but temperature has not! Remember those predictions of a new Ice Age back in the seventies? Well, you're probably too young. But I am not. There is very little correlation between C02 growth and temperature increases. C02 growth has been consistently upward but temperatures have been up and down. But back in the sixties and seventies, when temperatures were declining, C02 was increasing at about the same rate that it is now. From about 1975 until 1998 the temperature trend was generally upward, but since 1998 temperatures have pretty much flat-lined.

Ah yes - this old chestnut. From Forbes - that paragon of communist left wing environazi propaganda.

The current favorite argument of those who argue that climate changes isn’t happening, or a problem, or worth dealing with, is that global warming has stopped. Therefore (they conclude) scientists must be wrong when they say that climate change is caused by humans, worsening, and ultimately a serious environmental problem that must be addressed by policy makers.

The problem with this argument is that it is false: global warming has not stopped and those who repeat this claim over and over are either lying, ignorant, or exhibiting a blatant disregard for the truth.

Because facts:

First, climate change (including global warming) is defined as long-term changes in the average parameters of the climate, not shorter year-to-year variability. Air temperatures were somewhat cooler in the years following the extremely hot year in 1998, largely due to a natural effect called La Niña (see breakout box). But to say that this represents a halt to global warming is like saying that just because we have a cool summer day it is not summer any more.

Second, when averaging over the decadal time scales that scientists use to study climate change, the past decade was not only warmer than historical averages, it was the hottest on record. In fact, 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the decade after 1998[2].

Finally, the atmosphere (air) in which we live contains only a very small fraction of the total heat associated with the surface of the earth. The vast majority of the heat, about 85% of it is contained in the oceans, and observations show that ocean heat content has been rising over the past decade[3].

So you can continue spouting the nonsense about a pause in warming since 1998 - but in doing so you leave it to us to decide which of the three motivations outlined in the Forbes article applies to you.

 

[bleubird]

Motivation.
The first thing to do before reading a "study"is find out who funded the study.

 

[TSwizzle]

To all the sceptics in the room - do you not find it worrying that Exxon has understood and accepted AGW/climate change - since 1981?

Nope.

I mean I understand that some of you believe there's some great big giant academic conspiracy amongst scientists - or something. But What about the scientists and people that work in the oil industry? Are they part of it too?

The Guardian, !!

 

[Narapoia]

Nope.

I mean I understand that some of you believe there's some great big giant academic conspiracy amongst scientists - or something. But What about the scientists and people that work in the oil industry? Are they part of it too?

The Guardian, !!

So you have no substantive argument and will continue to deny something that oil companies have recognised themselves for 3 decades. Cool - instead of facile argument by emoticon you could try point out any errors in their reporting... but to be honest this is about the level of logical and rational thought most people associate with deniers anyway so it's not a huge surprise.

 

[boneyard bill]

To all the sceptics in the room - do you not find it worrying that Exxon has understood and accepted AGW/climate change - since 1981? I mean I understand that some of you believe there's some great big giant academic conspiracy amongst scientists - or something. But What about the scientists and people that work in the oil industry? Are they part of it too?

You could argue that they are under pressure from the press and the modern environmental movement now and so pay lip service to it - that I could understand. However, the article shows that it was a consideration a generation ago - from internal company communications.

The email (Recent email describing the situation in 1981) from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia.

Absolutely! Many skeptics, including myself, are well-aware that he oil industry has its footprints all over the global warming scam. Maurice Strong, founder of the IPCC, was an oil industry executive. So was the current head of IPCC. Al Gore was a major stock-holder in Occidental Petroleum right through his years in the Senate and the Vice-Presidency. There are numerous other connections between big-oil and the global warming scam. The agenda of the oil companies being involved in this is not obvious, but the evidence for it is strong.

 

[boneyard bill]

Narapoia writes:

Ah yes - this old chestnut. From Forbes - that paragon of communist left wing environazi propaganda.

This is not an argument against it. I do not read Forbes. It has been reported many places. There is no statistically significant correlation between CO2 increases and temperature increases. That is the fact that you have ignored here.

Because facts:





First, climate change (including global warming) is defined as long-term changes in the average parameters of the climate, not shorter year-to-year variability. Air temperatures were somewhat cooler in the years following the extremely hot year in 1998, largely due to a natural effect called La Niña (see breakout box). But to say that this represents a halt to global warming is like saying that just because we have a cool summer day it is not summer any more.

Climate is defined as weather patterns over a thirty year period. That we have had no global warming over half of the climate period is hardly a day-to-day or year-t0-year comparison.

Second, when averaging over the decadal time scales that scientists use to study climate change, the past decade was not only warmer than historical averages, it was the hottest on record. In fact, 8 of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the decade after 1998[2].

Which is simply saying what skeptics have already pointed out - the temperatures have leveled off. There is nothing magical about decades any more than there is anything magical about years. The actual temperature record is short. The earth has very likely been warmer and at some times, much warmer, in the past but we have no record for that. We must rely on historical records or proxy data for those periods.

Finally, the atmosphere (air) in which we live contains only a very small fraction of the total heat associated with the surface of the earth. The vast majority of the heat, about 85% of it is contained in the oceans, and observations show that ocean heat content has been rising over the past decade[3].

Ocean warming is not sufficient to account for the "missing heat" from the CO2 theory prediction.

You also ignored my most important point which is that the CO2 theory has been falsified by the tropospheric temperature record. Under the CO2 theory warming begins in the troposphere and descends to the surface. The surface can't get hotter than the source of its warming. And yet it is. Temperature records so the surface atmosphere to warmer and it gets cooler as you go up the troposphere whereas it should be getting hotter. Anyone familiar with the theory should recognize this and realize that the theory is falsified. That's one of the facts that you choose to ignore.

In fact, you have only addressed the criticisms of global warming. Where is the evidence FOR the C02 theory? The fact of warming is not seriously in dispute. What is in dispute is the cause of it and the likely pace of it. I'm not aware of any evidence put forth for the theory. All I've ever seen is bogus crap like icebergs breaking off of Antarctica (like that's not what icebergs do) or anecdotal (and misleading) evidence like the melting snows of Kilimonjaro. (Which is due to a local decline in rainfall).

 

[boneyard bill]

Nope.



The Guardian, !!

So you have no substantive argument and will continue to deny something that oil companies have recognised themselves for 3 decades. Cool - instead of facile argument by emoticon you could try point out any errors in their reporting... but to be honest this is about the level of logical and rational thought most people associate with deniers anyway so it's not a huge surprise.

So let me raise the question again. You claim to have the facts on your side. What are those facts? Do tell me what Exxon scientists believe or what IPCC scientists contend. Where is the observational evidence that supports the CO2 theory? Again, it's not about warming. It's about the cause of warming. Where is the evidence for the CO2 theory apart for a non-statistically significant correlation in the rise of CO2 and actual surface warming.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you have no substantive argument and will continue to deny something that oil companies have recognised themselves for 3 decades. Cool - instead of facile argument by emoticon you could try point out any errors in their reporting... but to be honest this is about the level of logical and rational thought most people associate with deniers anyway so it's not a huge surprise.

So let me raise the question again. You claim to have the facts on your side. What are those facts? Do tell me what Exxon scientists believe or what IPCC scientists contend. Where is the observational evidence that supports the CO2 theory? Again, it's not about warming. It's about the cause of warming. Where is the evidence for the CO2 theory apart for a non-statistically significant correlation in the rise of CO2 and actual surface warming.

BB, shouldn't you take this to Natural Science? You aren't arguing against this on a religion angle.

 

[scombrid]

You also ignored my most important point which is that the CO2 theory has been falsified by the tropospheric temperature record. Under the CO2 theory warming begins in the troposphere and descends to the surface.

The troposphere extends from the surface boundary layer to 9 to 17 km in altitude with thickness depending on latitude, weather, and season.

The surface can't get hotter than the source of its warming.

The surface is warmed by solar radiation.

Long wave radiation from the surface heats the troposphere.

Surface also exchanges heat with the troposphere via latent and sensible heat.

Various gasses make the troposphere more or less efficient at absorbing long wave radiation and re-radiating it back to the surface instead of it escaping to space straight away.

And yet it is. Temperature records so the surface atmosphere to warmer and it gets cooler as you go up the troposphere whereas it should be getting hotter.

Your wording here seems to literally say that it should be warmer at 10,000 feet than here at sea level if anthropogenic CO2 mediated global warming were true.

I hope I'm misreading that.

 

[atrib]

You also ignored my most important point which is that the CO2 theory has been falsified by the tropospheric temperature record. Under the CO2 theory warming begins in the troposphere and descends to the surface. The surface can't get hotter than the source of its warming. And yet it is. Temperature records so the surface atmosphere to warmer and it gets cooler as you go up the troposphere whereas it should be getting hotter. Anyone familiar with the theory should recognize this and realize that the theory is falsified. That's one of the facts that you choose to ignore.

From Wiki:

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed or reflected. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 26% is reflected back out to space by the atmosphere and clouds and 19% is absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds. Most of the remaining energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed (the overlap between the incident solar spectrum and the terrestrial thermal spectrum is small enough to be neglected for most purposes). Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, thereby warming it (in addition to sensible and latent heat fluxes from the surface). The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.

I don't understand why the troposphere should be warmer than the surface of the planet. Can you explain this part please?

 

[Underseer]

To all the sceptics in the room - do you not find it worrying that Exxon has understood and accepted AGW/climate change - since 1981? I mean I understand that some of you believe there's some great big giant academic conspiracy amongst scientists - or something. But What about the scientists and people that work in the oil industry? Are they part of it too?

You could argue that they are under pressure from the press and the modern environmental movement now and so pay lip service to it - that I could understand. However, the article shows that it was a consideration a generation ago - from internal company communications.

Absolutely! Many skeptics, including myself, are well-aware that he oil industry has its footprints all over the global warming scam. Maurice Strong, founder of the IPCC, was an oil industry executive. So was the current head of IPCC. Al Gore was a major stock-holder in Occidental Petroleum right through his years in the Senate and the Vice-Presidency. There are numerous other connections between big-oil and the global warming scam. The agenda of the oil companies being involved in this is not obvious, but the evidence for it is strong.

That is the most amazing thing I think I've ever read.

Anthropogenic climate change is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant scientific field, but you want us to believe that it is all an elaborate conspiracy carried out... by oil companies in order to damage their own bottom lines?

This may be the most hilarious anti-science argument I've read in a very long time. Thank you for posting that.

 

[barbos]

To all the sceptics in the room - do you not find it worrying that Exxon has understood and accepted AGW/climate change - since 1981? I mean I understand that some of you believe there's some great big giant academic conspiracy amongst scientists - or something. But What about the scientists and people that work in the oil industry? Are they part of it too?

Why would it be particularly worrying? Oil companies are known for lying, so this does not surprise me at all.
Oil companies thinking global warming could be real problem and lying about it has nothing to do with actual science, it just says they are lying bastards. Climate Science from the 80s is certainly no better than it is now. So why should we pay attention to dated theories?

Global warming is a no-brainer and had been that way before Exxon decided to "study" it.
Question is a degree to which it is a problem, and this is where I am not convinced by GW alarmists. The Irony here, is that I support all measures to combat global warming now. I just think it is a smaller problem than they say.