Leo

If you watched the film clip referred you would have noted that a number of scientists discussed how a model is used to create inferred temperatures from satellite data.

We have weather stations, satelittess, and nature showing warming is going on.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/feb/11/checking-ted-cruzs-climate-science-denial-clangers

You should update yourself, aiden, there is no global warming:
“the new warming trend for 1900-2013 is still not significantly different from zero at the 90% confidence level. H/T, Pat Michaels)”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/

Just try to understand that zero means none, aiden.
The flea contributes another piece of off topic nonsense to remind us of what a pest he is. What about the journalist who made up his own graphs to support a lie, to which you referred us? You consistently ignore anything relevant, but, of course, that is the only way a fraud supporter, like you, can participate.

You should think more about what you read, Leo, and stop restricting yourself to things that concur with your wishful thinking.

I'm well aware of what zero means.
I'm also aware that a blog post which fails to state what it means by "significant" is unlikely to be high enough quality to base a valid opinion on.
I'm also aware that the claim is based on dubious adjustments to the data.
I'm also aware that there doesn't have to be 90% confidence of something for it to be a serious threat.

I'm also aware of the great irony of you telling me to update myself, when 2015 was the hottest year on record. A blog post almost a year old, based on even older data, has been obviated by events. 'Tis time to update yourself, Leo. Of course it's harder for you to do so than most people, as the evidence that appears to support your fraud keeps getting sparser.

Leo

A quote from Dr Spencer's blog:

"Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and this is believed to be enhancing the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect. As of 2008, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was about 40% to 45% higher than it was before the start of the industrial revolution in the 1800’s."

In 2008, Dr Spencer would not have had access to the 11 year ARM study which took data from the natural environment showing the impact of radiated infrared long waves on CO2.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Quote:

""Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect," Feldman adds."

Feldman says that there is a 0.2 of a Watt increase per square meter per decade, seemingly a very small increase. However, the question arises; how many billions of square meters do we multiply that 0.2 Watt by to obtain a decadal increase?

The other interesting feature is that above the earth's greenhouse blanket there is cooling happening. Less warmth is escaping into outer space.

Dr Spencer believes implicitly in data from satellites; a quite recent paper showed that Oceans are warming. As indicated in a previously provided reference satellites take data from layers and then a model is used to translate the data. Ocean temperature changes very slowly due to their sheer volume (70% of Earth); they have a major influence on climate.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/uob-cco012516.php

A study of phytoplankton that supports Oceans are warming:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066979/abstract

A science question:

Leo, how do you explain the break down of Greenland glaciers at a quickening rate?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/melting-greenland-ice-changing-ocean-circulation-earth-s-gravitational-field-1.343790

"Deniers keep saying satellite data is more accurate than temperature measured at weather stations."

Well since I don't say that I mustn't be a denier. whooohoo!

ALL of the official temperature records are guesses. Which one guesses the best at any particular point is unknowable and in the who-cares category. In terms of the hottest this or th warmest that, we are talking about small margins of difference that fall within the margin of error. Of coarse the MoE is also a guess.

Remember when we were told that 2014 was the then hottest year ever. A little later NASA admitted that they were only 38% sure that it was the hottest year because it was a guess.

They are all educated guesses because they are based on real data. But then the data is manipulated for myriad reasons. eg the Urban Heat-Island effect. No one doubts that the effect exists but the extent of value of the effect is unknown and therefore any adjustments to the original data are.....guesses. And not only is the current data altered but data from the 20th century is still be adjusted as and when it suits.

Again we are working on minute changes here such that even a small error in the adjustment algorithm will move a year from so-so to the hottest ever.

Remember the Gergis et al paper. Its now withdrawn because Steve McIntyre found so many errors in it. But before that Karoly and his pals were claiming that it showed that Asutralia was hotter than ever before. How much hotter? Well 0.09c hotter than 1417AD!!
And this was based on three proxy records that included one from Fiji. The point isn't the accuracy of the data but the headlines that ant and those like him fall for, over and over again.

So, are we warmer now than in 1934? Probably but I'm not sure. And if they were honest, neither is anyone else. And even if we are warmer, its by such a small amount that, except in these times of Gaia worship no one would notice and/or care.

According to the climate fraud supporters, each year as it arrives is “the hottest year on record”. The truth comes out shortly afterwards, and the fraud supporters announce that the next year will be “the hottest year ever”.The assertion on 2015 was just another fraud-promoting lie.
“Satellite temperature readings going back to 1979 show 1998 was by far the warmest year in the satellite era, followed by 2010. 2015 comes in third. And these results are only for the period since 1979.
2015 should have been warmer. This past year saw what is likelythe most powerful El Nino during the satellite temperature record. With a record El Nino, we should have experienced record high temperatures. Yet we didn’t.”

“it is not too difficult for activists to paint a picture of an exceptionally warm world – record El Nino or not – when they conveniently define “the record” as merely extending back to the late 1800s. Global warming activists do not extend “the record” back any further, they say, because it has only been since the late 1800s that we have had a global network of mercury thermometers. But we do have other reliable indicators of temperatures before the late 1800s, and the evidence shows temperatures have been warmer than today for most of the past several thousand years, including warmer-than-present temperatures for most of the human civilization time period.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2016/01/14/2015-was-not-even-close-to-hottest-year-on-record/#5b52fde423c6
Update yourself, aiden.