GrahamY

I have based my assumptions on my training in thermodynamics and fluid mechanics obtained from my degree in mechanical engineering. I am not a scientist so I must leave the measurement of global warming (a thermometer in your words) to the scientists who have the training and knowledge needed for that work.

Dear Peter Lang,

I don't concur with your argument based on ad hominem. Everyone has a motive for his or her action and to understand the action one must also consider the motive. I don't mind being criticised by people who say that my arguments are based on the fact that I have degrees in sociology, history and anthropology.

Dear ant,

I think humankind has become an incurable cancer on the face of the Earth. It's only a matter of time before we extinguish all forms of life on the planet. And I don't think we are looking too far into the future.

Opinion,

You have no more understanding of someone else's motives than they have of yours. Your approach to arguing is to use ad hominem fallacy. You don't even recognise it when told (I am surprised you've studied and yer don't know this - it's an indication of how poor our education system has become). Your comment detract from any chance of an informative discussion.

You have not attempted to address the points of fact and relevance to the debate.

You may have several degrees, but all that shows is you can study and pass exams. It doesn't show any commonsense, or expertise in any discipline. I am really surprised, and doubt you are a qualified engineer and certainly not a professional engineer. You have not shown any indication of having developed "engineering judgement" (i.e. common sense developed from experience and from working under the supervision senior engineers over a long career.

Whatever engineering school you went through, you were poorly trained.

I'd suggest you leave aside all your ad hominem comments from now on and focus on arguing the relevant facts. I doubt you can do that. I doubt you've been educated. To me you come across as the worst type of zealot and denier (of the relevant facts). And, yes, I've responded to you in the only kind of language you apparently understand.

There is no consensus among scientists that climate science debate is over and we understand what will happen in the future. The scientists are all over the place and there are enormous uncertainties in every parameter that is important for policy analysis: ECS, future GHG concentrations, Damage function, Impacts, appropriate discount rates, and more.

Following is summary of excellent testimony to the US Congress on the state of climate science:

Professor Judith Curry’s Testimony to the US House of Representatives Hearing on “The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge”

“Major points:

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

• The hiatus in global warming since 1998

• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide

• Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century

We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

• The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

• Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

• Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution

• It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.03o C in warming by 2100.

The inadequacies of current policies based on the Precautionary Principle are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by humans or natural variability) largely unaddressed:

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

• Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.”

Read or watch the testimony here: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-ta

Dear Peter lang,

Doing my engineering degree was an absolute waste of time and I don't care two hoots about being an engineer, good or bad. The best engineers I've run across don't even have degrees; and 50% off those with degrees would rather be doing something else. Engineering is just a trade and personally I don't think it even needs to be taught at university level. And the engineers who are successful in the profession are some of the most nastiest horrible people one could ever expect to meet. The only advantage it has been to me is in allowing me to understand some of the principles used by scientists.

I'm honest and open about my background. What is your background?

BIG SCARE OF 1978

"Numerous anomalous weather situations have happened over the last couple of decades. I do not recall as a young adult 45 years ago constant news bulletins about weather disasters." (ant)

Excellent correlation between increasing number of TV stations, media folk over past 45 years and frequency of 'weather disasters'. Global population increased from 4 billion in 1970 to 7.3 billion today, so more people affected too.

Goldilocks weather is a state of mind - not reality.

Rug up and enjoy the BIG SCARE of 1978: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kGB5MMIAVA

And then - as Peter Lang suggests above - read Judith Curry: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-ta

"Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

Mr Opinion

I believe that it won't be long before multitudes will die through climate change but that does not mean extinction.
Currently Ethiopians are having difficulty with little food available. 2016 is meant to be an extremely hot year again. Drought and flooding being bad news for agriculture.

Robert Scribbler places context around what has been occurring in very recent times:

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/31/amidst-disasters-around-the-world-top-scientists-declare-links-between-extreme-weather-and-climate-change/v

Peter Lang

Till so far 1997/8 has been the strongest el nino recorded followed by 1982, the latest el nino could very well be the strongest ever recorded, all data is not in yet.
But 2015 promises to be the hottest year recorded which debunks the notion that temperature paused after 1997.

I'm very aware that deniers believe that there has been a conspiracy in relation to how temperature is measured. Conspiracies and professional people don't mix especially when so many disciplines and peak agencies are involved; climate science began almost 2 centuries ago.

Watts made allegations about how temperature was tampered with in the US, he came unstuck:

http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/

Berkley an independent recorder of temperature concurs with how temperature is measured in Australia.

Quote:

"One of the most comprehensive reviews of global surface temperature records was the Berkley Earth project, which also included a section on Australia’s data. The review concluded that the evidence of warming in surface temperature records is robust."

From:
https://theconversation.com/bureaus-weather-records-to-be-reviewed-again-sure-why-not-36592

Last year reached the highest temperature ever recorded in comparison to preindustrial times.