1) The NOAA and satellites. You make me wonder. You do know that the satellites ARE corrected for orbital drift. That was a problem 15 years ago but has been corrected long ago. You mention the land record. The land record is so corrupted by “sciologists” in this field with extreme confirmation bias there is no way to discern its validity. The last 30 years have seen 32 adjustments to the adjustments. In 30 of those adjustments the effect was to increase global warming in the record. On a purely statistical basis the chances of that are 1 billion to one. That is almost proof that fudging has been going on conscious or not. More important the satellite data is critically important because it measures the bulk of the atmosphere where the heating is to happen. This is where the CO2 is that would be heated by the upwelling radiation. Satellites show this is heating much less. This alone shows that if there is more land heating than expected it CANNOT be because of CO2. The land can’t heat more than the air which is collecting the heat supposedly. So, a major problem in attribution.
However, one of the things you prove with your post is by essentially discounting all my points and not introducing any points of doubt yourself you are confirming the bubble theory. Are you actually saying that the theory is AWESOME. It works fantastic, nothing is wrong, nothing has gone wrong? That seems to be what you said. You attempted to refute every point not giving me one scintilla of basis which is exactly the response of every climate sociologist.
You would never see this in other sciences. In other sciences scientists are OVERJOYED to talk about the problems in the science. They love to talk about the difficulties, what is missing, what they are working on that is difficult because that is the nature of science. That is what scientists do. The Australian government laid off all their climate modeling scientists using the argument, since it is settled we don’t need these scientists. This is exactly the case. If everything I have said is trash, then why shouldn’t we fire you and every climate scientist because the science is DONE. It’s settled.
This is the attitude that is proof that this is not a science. I have studied science all my life. I love the mysteries, the potential for great discoveries. Apparently no such thing in climate science. Hansen figured it all out 30 years ago. Your response is proof of the filter bubble. “No worries here.” Just keep believing our alarmist statements in the press.
Do you have any concerns when you read some article saying that storms will get more intense or predicting 6 feet of sea level rise in 2050? Do you feel any need to correct any of the outrageous articles that are published every day practically which use climate science to project massive disasters which the science itself refuses to say?
That’s the problem. A stream of news and articles which say things that support a thesis that never shows doubt never shows counter evidence. Every article that mentions something like it was cold this winter will always have the obligatory “of course one winter doesn’t mean that the climate isn’t soaring at record rates to oblivion” but when it is warm all you do is get articles which say “just another step to the 175 degrees the Middle East will see in 2080.” Do you not see at all the lack of any scientific skepticism in the media or reports?
What you say about PDO and AMO not affecting longer term climate misses two important points which you fail to mention which I would expect a real scientist to point out. Because real scientists are objective they wouldn’t attack but would explain the actual facts. Yes, PDO and AMO are seen to be a 60 year effect that theoretically should cancel out. What you failed to point out is that these effects were not accounted for in the attribution for CO2 in the 1975–2000 period. When this was first done they didn’t know about the +- 0.23C degree oscillation so they made the conclusion that the rise from 1975–2000 was 110% due to CO2 as one scientist said. Now we know that during this period the PDO/AMO were on a plus cycle which means at least 50–75% of the rise in this period was due to natural factors. This is simply another of the facts that NEVER makes it out to daylight in the press. Even the IPCC knows they cannot account for the rise between 1910–1940 with CO2.
So, maybe you are acknowledging the PDO/AMO could be there but then this means the models don’t model it and it means they didn’t know about it. They still don’t know what causes the variation. This is a major problem because who knows what effect it could be caused by and how that effect could be attributed to other things that are assumed to be CO2. You don’t know. The lack of knowledge of these things is a huge failure in a “settled” science.
The MWP and LIA are not local. I remember asking the head of LLNL modeling. If the MWP or LIA are local can you explain how the temperatures could be off by degrees for a century in certain regions? What is the explanation for that? No answer. He assumed it must be local because it is inconvenient for it to be non-local but it leaves open the thorny question. How is it remotely possible or physically possible that Europe was a degree or 2 hotter for centuries? Also you are wrong about the record of papers on the LIA and MWP. There are literally dozens and dozens of papers which have confirmed warm and cool periods all over the globe corresponding to the LIA and MWP. As a scientist assuming you are one then you would have to admit that there is a chance this is true and therefore if it is true you don’t know why it happened or how it could have happened. If it was local you cannot explain why it was local or how it was local.
You also use the terms ignorant and insulting. Possibly however a scientist would not reply in kind. A scientist would explain why the LIA was local and how that happened. A scientist would admit they didn’t know why it happened. A scientist would admit the predictions about storms seem wrong. A scientist would admit the models seem juiced. A scientist would admit the failures. In fact would be excited about the failures. This is not a science. It is a filter bubble. It’s obvious.
You end the post with “the world is getting warmer and it is caused by humans.” This is the kind of tripe that I could write. Yes, it is getting warmer. It will likely be about 0.3C warmer in 2100 and some of it is due to humans, but we don’t know how much. Maybe half maybe less. We don’t understand what drives temperatures over longer time periods but a best guess might be 0.3C. Is that catastrophic? No. There is no way with the heat we have generated from 115ppm of CO2 in 70 years which is about 0.4C that we will get 2C by 2100 or 1C by 2100. To get 1C by 2100 would require double the rate of heating we’ve had over the last 70 years from probably 150ppm of CO2 which is impossible according to the facts of what has actually happened in the last 70 years.
Part of the problem is that when Hansen first came out we were at the beginning of the curve and he could predict all kinds of things and people would believe. However, now it’s 70 years of data and we are halfway to 2100. We have put 115ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere and the results are in from 70 years. It is 0.4C, not 2C, 3C, 4C, 6C, 10C as was predicted originally. So, now you can’t say the temperature will be 2c higher in 2100 or even 1C. So, what kind of disastrous things are going to happen from another 0.4C or so? You expect anyone to believe this requires changing the world when all the predictions of storms and food and everything have proven false?
Another fact I like to point out that is NEVER mentioned by sciologists in the bubble. CO2 is probably feeding 1 billion people / year because of enhanced fertilization. The fact that scientists never mention, that the press NEVER mentions this incredible benefit of CO2 is proof again that this is a bubble. A real scientist would acknowledge negatives and benefits. Climate scientists almost never do so.