The ARM 11 year study was conducted in the environment measuring actual conditions at two locations, Leo. Data was collected on pretty well a daily basis. But, controlled experiments have been conducted in labourites as well; ranging from quite simple to highly sophisticated.

I'm more inclined to believe NASA, NOAA, BOM, andJMA than your Carter.
The trend lines over many decades show an upward trend in temperature. Matters such as volcano eruptions, and a slight dimming of the sun have an impact on climate; despite these factors the trend line of temperature is going up. Aerosols also have a negating impact on temperature; but, where aerosol pollution is high, death rate is high.

Previously, a references to Pavel Serov was provided, his work indicated the tenuous situation in Siberia where pingos can release high levels of methane and C02.

Once again Leo you have regurgitated the comments you usually make with no reference to science. Again you have proven my comment about just providing ad hominem comments.

Prince Charles tells us today that the root cause of terrorism is man-made climate change. What won't the alarmists blame on global warming? If its hot they jump with glee, if its cold its because of climate change, El Nino effect... climate change of course, hurricanes, snow storms, a miniscule increase in the sea level, even the increased ice in Antarctica is proof we are doomed.

But hey, all we need to do is start taxing the air, redistribute the wealth and it will all come right.

Give me a break!

I don't know about anyone else but I am tired of seeing this quote somewhere within almost every thread on OLO - "you use the standard tricks of ad hominem comments, obfuscation and diverting".

Michael Kile wrote 20 November 2015:

* "Fact one: The climate – average weather over a 30-year period – has been in a state of change ever since the planet acquired an atmosphere. Change is what the climate does."

Michael, the climate does change naturally, but global warming is a large, rapid change cased by human action which will be harmful to humans.

* "Fact two: Computer simulations are what-if projections, not what-will predictions based on established and verifiable laws of climate change."

Computer simulations are predictions based on scientific theory. There are no "laws" in science: a theory lasts until evidence contradicts it. It is possible that almost all climate scientists are wrong, and you are right, but that seems unlikely to me.

* "Fact three: There are only two infallible laws of climate science: (i) the squeaky wheel gets the oil; and (ii) the level of high-anxiety over (allegedly) 'dangerous' anthropogenic climate change increases exponentially with the decline in temporal proximity to the next UN climate conference, ceteris paribus."

There are no "laws" in science, everything is open to question, debate and revision. It is unfortunately the case that alarmist predictions tend to get press coverage. The problem is then when we do really have a looming disaster, as we do with human caused global warming, it can tend to be treated as just another scare campaign.

ConservativeHippie, produce some science if you don't like words such as "obfuscation" and "diverting".

Anthropogenic climate change has proven principles in relation to how long wave radiation reacts with CO2.
Those who deny climate change have no such fundamental principle.

I haven't seen what Prince Charles has stated; but the way you have described it certainly appears like overstatement. At any rate, the science of climate change does not hang on what Prince Charles says.
Powell has stated that between 2013 and 2014 there were 24, 000 peer reviewed papers on climate change published with only a handful published by skeptical scientists.
That provides a reason for being served up with much verbiage without reference to science by deniers.

ant

You do understand, don't you, that a scientific proof cannot take the form of relying on appeal to absent authority?

Do you understand that, or not?

JKJ, there are any number of videos showing the reaction of CO2 and long wave radiation. There are scientific papers written about it as well.
Science is not about semantics.
As stated deniers have very few science papers they can refer to, so play semantic games.

Carbon created from compressed biomass as used in fossil fuels has been created over 100+ million years; we use the sequestered carbon and expel it into the atmosphere in a second in comparison to the length of time the carbon had been created. It is not that long ago that sequestering of CO2 was discussed as a means of reducing emissions; at present the opposite process is happening.