Bobby. wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 12:51pm:


Do you have any evidence that it could be normal?
Because there is plenty of evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 produce warming

The_Barnacle wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:01pm:


Do you have evidence that it is not normal...........????

Mans emissions are so small they can get lost in the correction factor.

freediver wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:05pm:



FD - with all due respect you need
to Google
Medieval Warm Period
and
The Roman Warm Period

We've been through this countless times on this MRB
but it seems that hardly anyone has bothered to read it.
So I won't repeat it again.
It's up to those like you to research it yourself
if you are really after the truth.

There is evidence in the OP Ajax. Let us know when you figure out what it is.

Ajax wrote on May 29^th, 2021 at 1:27pm:



"The IPCC attempted to hide this lack of a hot spot in the AR5. It is after all critical to their exaggerated positive feedbacks. Professor Christy explains in the quote below.

          “Unfortunately, it was buried in the Supplementary Material of Chapter 10 without comment.  In Fig. 4, I present the figure that appeared in this IPCC section.  I was a reviewer (a relatively minor position in that report) in the AR5 and had insisted that such a figure be shown in the main text because of its profound importance, but the government appointed lead authors decided against it.  They opted to place it in the Supplementary Material where little attention would be paid, and to fashion the chart in such a way as to make it difficult to understand and interpret.”


For the period 1979 to 2016. Compare NASA GISS Model (Top Left) to satellite bulk atmosphere observations from UAH (Bottom Left), RSS (Bottom Right) and the Universal RAwinsonde Observation Program (RAOB) (Balloon Data) (Top Right). The observations clearly indicate the lack of the predicted hot spot.

Figure 7. The lack of a hot spot as actually measured compared to modelled.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/16/the-greenhouse-effect-in-a-water-world/

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 8:31am:


There are two graphs there FD........



Quote:

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2021 at 11:16am:


Don't know is that where it ran out for that particular study/talk/presentation.

What are you suggesting they tried to hide data by cutting the graph short.

Quote:


What is wrong with this....?!

Do you know what happens after the satellites obtain this data and what they do with it....????

Quote:


You can look that up your self so you can be better educated about these things might help resolve your previous question

Ajax as a typical climate skeptic, would you describe it as

a) clever
b) idiotic

to compare predicted global surface temperature with measured tropical troposphere temperatures?

Quote:


It "ran out" when everyone realised he was full of crap.

Quote:


I am suggesting that the original author has not bothered updating it because everyone already knows it is a load of crap.

And that, being a climate "skeptic," you are too gullible to be suspicious of it.

Quote:


I did. You cannot directly measure air temperature with a satellite. You and Lee have posted temperature "measurements" from two different groups that are based on the same set of satellite data, but which give very different sets of measurements. As far as I can tell, no-one else bothers trying to measure atmospheric temperature with satellites. It took about 30 seconds on google to figure out just how full of crap you are. Not that there is that much value in measuring the amount of crap coming from a climate skeptic. Maybe next time you can save us the trouble and figure this out for yourself.