Hi Don,
A rephrasing of your post. I made no claim about truth. Just asked you to validate negative responses with reasoned logic, if possible. None given. Only platitudes and myths.

1. 1896 research by Svante August Arrhenius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
DA: No comment – basic science not accepted – no reasons provided. Claims that climate sensitivity only 1C to 2C. No supporting evidence. WG1AR5 from IPCC clearly documents, analyses, equilibrium climate sensitivity: 2C to 4C, of course with appropriate confidence and likelihood couplets

2. NOAA and CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth
DA: Accept – but claims no temperature rise for quite a while (presumably he means surface air temperature). Myth propagation with no supporting evidence

3. NASA CO2 much higher than it has been for at least 400,000 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
DA: Accept
But says of no concern, with no supporting evidence

4. Increasing mean temperatures http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries
DA: doesn’t accept BOM records. Myth propagation with no supporting evidence
New temp measuring equip forces re-calibration of old records. Old equip may have 0.2C out. Conspiracy claimed – so the blind lead the blind
5. Decreasing Arctic ice from 1979 to 2014
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
DA: Accepts data. States that someone claimed it would be ice free by 2015. No source information provided. Antarctic sea ice increase in accord with global warming (see earlier post)

6. 7. 9. 10. 11. Examples of extreme weather causing much damage and loss of life;
DA: Not accepted - no 100% certainty.
House/car insured because 0.1% chance of fire/accident. But ignore CC risks where probability tween 10% to 95%. Delusional the only word that comes to mind.

8. Less heat is leaving the earth
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php
DON: accepts data, impact small.
A 1 watt difference equals a 1kw bar radiator, turned on, in each 30m by 30 m square around the world.
And Don posits this has no impact, no additional water evaporated to power large storms, not enough heat to turn more of the world into desert, bar radiators everywhere not increasing forest fire risk. Food bowls not impacted. Lazy jet streams depositing winter storms in US, UK, Europe…

Sorry Peter,
I should have mentioned Leo.
Need more coffee

Not so,Tony. The perturbation of the climategate miscreants and their attempt to refute this paper showed up in the climategate emails. They came up with a rebuttal which was easily dismissed despite their attempts to block publication of Mclean’s reply.One of the emails about the attempted rebuttal of Mclean’s paper:

“Incidentally I gave a copy [of the Foster et al. critique] to Mike McPhaden and discussed
it with him last week when we were together at the OceanObs'09 conference. Mike is
President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras,
and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My
reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.”
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28, 2009”

This shows the perceived urgency of Trenberth and his unethical approach to the publisher

Mclean’s conclusion:
“Overall the results suggest that the Southern Oscillation exercises a consistently dominant influence on mean global temperature, with a maximum effect in the tropics, except for periods when equatorial volcanism causes ad hoc cooling. That mean global tropospheric temperature has for the last 50 years fallen and risen in close accord with the SOI of 5–7 months earlier shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation.”

So the warming which the fraud-backers ascribed to human emissions was natural.
Still a fraud-backer, Tony? You just have to ignore the science, like warmair, ant and Agronomist do.Otherwise you would have to give up the fraud and accept reality.

Leo,
Thanks for your post. I think you might be confusing two sets of temperatures. The phrase Global Warming refers to air temperatures at the land / ocean levels. Melbournes air temp might be recorded at 1.5m above the ground. Whereas a troposphere temperature might be the average of temperatures from ground level to 17km high.

Temperatures just above the land / sea surface are still rising and have been doing so for a number of decades. Determining tropospheric temperatures is very complex and involves satellite data. Very different to reading a thermometer. Determining variations in tropospheric temperature is also very complex.

Numbers of research groups have been working on that task. Work done, since the paper you referenced was published, have confirmed that warming in the troposphere is following similar upwards trends as do the surface temperatures.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm

This web site provides more information. The description is complex, and you will probably reject it. But numbers of research groups verify the warming.

Tony,

When I see a reference to SkS I give a gentle shudder, because it is such a defensive bastion of AGW belief.

You say to Leo that warming has been 'confirmed' and direct him to the SkS website. Your link provides a good account of the techniques used in satellite measurement, but the 'confirming' you talk about has to be based on this extract:

'a reasonable estimate at this point is that warming lies somewhere between the mid estimate of UAH/RSS and the figures that would be produced by V&G & Zou if Stratospheric cool biasing were removed. This suggests a long term trend of around 0.15 to 0.18 °C/decade for the lower Troposphere, much in line with the surface trends. And similar or higher for the mid-Troposphere based on the fact that Fu et al is looking at the entire Troposphere and V&G are showing higher Tropospheric than surface warming through the mid and tropical latitudes.

So these various analyses clearly show that the Troposphere IS warming, as determined from multiple sources.'

I don't know what you or Leo would think of this 'confirmation'. What we are given is a claimed 'reasonable estimate' somewhere between someone's mid point and someone else's results if only they had done something else instead, and bearing in mind that they were looking at a wider area. Then SkS says, triumphantly, 'these various analyses clearly show that the Troposphere IS warming, as determined from multiple sources'. Crikey!

As I've said many times, far too many papers (on both sides of this debate) are spoken of as though they 'confirm', or 'debunk', or 'prove', when all of them are best seen as 'suggestive'. What we have at the moment does not support the IPCC view that warming has occurred in the troposphere. It may have, but the evidence is at best cloudy, and unimpressive.

Don,
Are your feet close to the 1kW radiator inhabiting your 30x30m space?

So you like SkS (ha ha). All research scientists are skeptics – they query new conclusions, repeat similar investigations, read other papers – all potentially leading to new understanding.

Now, playing with semantics - beliefs may be associated with football teams, religion and numerous other matters. Beliefs are generally formed through sub-conscious processes. Science understanding is a matter of rational thought. The SkS deals with the output from rational thinking – not beliefs. Excellent in debunking some 176 myths (beliefs), each linking to authoritative sources.

Comments about “confirm”. Most scientific papers propose a paradigm or new understanding in opening paragraphs. The paper then outlines its research, particularly giving in depth detail on data acquisition and analysis. Paper’s conclusion then generally confirms that the opening proposition is adequately addressed.

You might have noticed a short post from, I believe, the most knowledgeable contributor to this discussion – nominating two sites to gain deeper understanding of the IPCC process for managing uncertainty.

This excursion into things tropospheric is not appropriate in this forum (not a belief - my excursion into rational thought). While the troposphere is very important for atmospheric heat and water vapour transport, jet streams (tight and lazy), and much more, debating it here does very little to resolve agreement or disagreement on the basic tenants of global warming. It would send your followers to sleep. Are your views constrained by your readership?

It is far better, in my rational opinion, to debate the science starting with Svante Arrhenius’s research in 1896. Then progress to NASA’s records showing about 1 watt per square metre warming. If each of these is accepted, then progress through any of numerous climate science disciplines. I am not sure that you accepted the 1896 research.

The environment is complex, not at all like a laboratory where experimental conditions can be precisely established. Different groups with different models come up with different answers for, say, climate sensitivity. But, the close agreement over many models attests to the secure foundations of climate science.