GrahamY: "As far as I know most serious observers of the AGW issue prefer the satellite data because they are not subject to the statistical manipulation that land-based thermometers are."

If "most serious observers" preferred satellite data rather than surface measurements, why do the IPCC reports and indeed most scientific discussion of the instrumental temperature record use surface measurements such as Hadley and GISS?

The "urban heat island effect" is real, but what "Watts Up With That" et al (the anti-science denial blogs) will not tell you is that the warming trend has been comprehensively validated through correlation of non-urban data with urban data, correlation of still nights with windy nights, and correlation of marine temperature data with land temperature data.

See an introduction to the topic at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html

On the other hand, satellite data is subject to several significant systemic issues. Rather than a large number of sources that can be compared and statistically correlated, there are a small number of sources. The data itself is not a direct measurement of surface temperatures at all, but is a measurement of lower stratospheric and upper tropospheric temperatures. This data is then subject to adjustment based on a series of assumptions about how the upper tropospheric temperature under certain conditions relates to the lower troposphere (the surface). On top of this, the data can be substantially affected by changes in the rate of orbital erosion (the satellite slowly losing altitude). Problems with instrumental calibration have also been an issue. We've seen several cases over the last few years where satellite data has had to be retracted and revised as a result of miscalculation of these factors.

Overall, there is a place for satellite data, and it is useful for some purposes, but it runs a poor second to the surface record in most cases, and certainly for quantifying global trends.

As for the Australian temperature trend, what data are you referring to? The big picture in Australia certainly appears to have been one of warming. See, for instance, http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi

Eclipse Now you have a graph reading problem. If you actually follow the red line you will find that it is higher at the beginning around 1000 AD than it is when it stops around 2000 AD.

You might also notice that some of the other data sets are associated with Briffa. As a result of Steve McIntyre's most recent work you have to discard those datasets for the time being. It appears that the data on which they are based is not representative. There may be a good reason for the selection, but we'll have to wait and see. Joanne Nova has the best explanation http://joannenova.com.au/2009/09/breaking-news-cherry-picking-of-historic-proportions/

Something else you might notice is that they supply the last few years on the combined graph by splicing an instrumental temperature record to it. This is a complete no-no. I also wonder where they get that record from as it doesn't look like any of the established datasets which peak or plateau in 1998.

Something else you might like to note on that page is the graph just below of the Holocene period demonstrating that current temperatures are below the average for at least the last 8000 years.

You've got it about 180 degrees wrong on temperature increasing faster nearer the equator. It is supposed to warm more at the poles than the equator, which is one reason there are likely to be fewer severe cyclones with global warming. A decreased temperature differential should lead to slower air movement, all other things being equal. A storm reconstruction using proxy data that I can retrieve for you if you are interested showed more hurricanes during the Little Ice Age than more recently, which is consistent with this hypothesis.

As for Australian temperatures always setting records, I don't think so. You're confusing journalistic write-ups with the facts.

To Runner (on Genesis),
I don't really care about evolution: it's just a scientific theory that appears to be about to change radically anyway. (Carl Sagan's wife was on the Science Show recently talking about Gene-stealing).

You're twisting Genesis by forcing modern scientific questions onto the passage that simply have NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!

I actually hold to the essential 'basic gospel' truths! The bible is full of different kinds of writing, including history, love poetry, the figurative apocalyptic genre, biography, and other forms. I'm just recognising the GENRE of Genesis for what it is: a figurative description of WHY God made the world, not a historical or scientific narrative on HOW God made the world. It's still God's word, and still true. Moore College is just asking how the original audience would have read it. I don't know why you're so uptight about it and telling me I deny the basic gospel, because we BOTH believe God made the world, God made it good, and mankind wrecked it by rebelling against him. I just think there is actually more *theology* to be gained from the passage reading it as a polemic against the surrounding culture than a strict outline of *what* occurred *when*, which seems arbitrary and lacking meaning.

The Framework view IS what Moore Bible College teaches trainee ministers, and seems to be the growing consensus amongst evangelical scholars which J.I.Packer sums up here.
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/media/podcast/sydangclassic/creation_evolution_problems

**Christians and Global Warming**.

The ethics lecturer at Moore College Dr Andrew Cameron wrote the following articles. Start with “How sceptical is too sceptical”.
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/apologetics/63_climate_change_part_3_how_sceptical_is_too_sceptical/

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/apologetics/58_climate_change_1_steadying_ourselves/

http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/apologetics/58_climate_change_1_steadying_ourselves/

The former Head of the IPCC is a Christian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
Interesting interview here.
http://tinyurl.com/yaxw2ul

Christian groups that care about global warming and the climate.
http://www.christian-ecology.org.uk/index.htm
http://www.creationcare.org/
http://christiansandclimate.org/
http://www.restoringeden.org/

Global warming is just one of MANY consequences of our own silly actions. Why do you **really** object to it?

Eclipse Now

You write:

'I don't really care about evolution: it's just a scientific theory that appears to be about to change radically anyway'

You seem to make a big fuss about something you don't care about and regard as a 'theory.

You write

'You're twisting Genesis by forcing modern scientific questions onto the passage that simply have NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!'

You are wrong. The only thing I consistently point out is that true science validates the Genesis account much more than the evolution fantasy. The big bang theory is worse than a fairytale. Both are faith based positions. Where have I twisted Genesis?

YOu write

'Global warming is just one of MANY consequences of our own silly actions. Why do you **really** object to it?'

Looking after the environment that God has given is one thing. Believing a bunch of pseudo scientist who have had more false predictions than the Jehovah's Witness is another. Many of their models are based on when the earth did not even exist. Don't you understand that true science is something tested and proved? As stewards of the earth we have a responsibility to care for the planet not to swallow the lies and fantasies of gw high priests. The last 5 years of the earths cooling temperatures have proven a major embarasment to these men. Unfortunately instead of eating humble pie they make up more stories. You obviously were not around when global cooling was to be the doom of the planet in the 80's. Same 'scientific theories' same gullible believers. If you really want to be concerned about gw read 2 Peter. His predictions will be a lot more reliable and stop trying to have a bit both ways.

Away a few days and Mark has 'Bolt'ed and the moderator, chief editor and "expert" climate scientist (metaphorically speaking, of course) has entered into the fray to exert truth, justice and the ‘righteous’ way. God forbid that humanity can influence the environment that it seeks to control and have dominion over.

Mark, as a journalist for more than 30 years (including more than 20 on the Australian Financial Review) you have (still?) been a science writer and editorial writer for the AFR. You are now senior journalist and reports editor. If you are still looking Mark, would it be possible to have this article of yours published in the Australian Financial Review?

I realise you would consider this abuse and ad hom, but metaphorically, you and your cavalry are foot-soldiers for the 'deny-n-delay' army ... having little scientific acumen or indeed, serious scientific credentials pertaing to climate science.

You do however posses articulate, albeit mendacious, flair. Indeed, your major reinforcement can also espouse 'science-speak' knowing all too well that the vast majority of people have a very poor understanding of climate science. You both do this with aplomb, knowing full well it is impossible to explain the science with the constraints we have in place.

I concur with a colleague: he is staggered that a small group of sceptics somehow think it is beyond human power to affect global climate patterns in a time when humans are a global force.

For those still looking, the following link provides some insightful reading

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html

Questions and Answers that address the concerns of many.

Eclipse, take a deep breath ... and my previous advice, please.

Q&A I thought you were promising to address the issues when you came back. All you have done here is smear Mark (and me for some reason) and link to a blog.

For the record I have never disputed that man's emissions of CO2 will have some effect on the climate. The issue is whether the emissions will cause a catastophe or not, and the empirical evidence is they won't. But my role in most of these debates is to try to ensure that argument proceed on a logical basis, not ad hominem attack and appeals to authority like you indulge in.

Talking about "appeals to authority" no-one could take the page by the economist that you linked to seriously. Take this statement in his second point.

"It is important to emphasise that this is not simply an argument from authority. An argument from authority is weak because it asserts that we should believe something simply because an authority figure says it is true. That is not what is going on here. No-one is saying that we should believe the IPCC simply because of its status as an international institution. The reasons for confidence in the statements of the IPCC and the world’s leading scientific bodies do not rest not on their status as authoritative institutions but on the evidence for their statements. This evidence has already been through the wringer of peer-review publication and has survived post-publication scrutiny by the international scientific community."

This tautology can be summarised as "I'm not arguing from authority because my authority is good authority, and my authority for saying that is the authority of my authority." I also note his extensive reference of unreliable websites like De Smog, Real Climate Deltoid and Greenfyre. As he is an economist I'm surprised he didn't throw John Quiggin in as well.

I'm assuming, because there has been no rebuttal in response to my last post that we accept the reality of the Medieval Warm Period. If you are going to dispute things on this thread Q&A, how about disputing them. No more ad hom please.