Blogger Accuses Climate Scientists of 'Manufacturing' Warming

[donsutherland1]

Recently, a new paper came out that provides additional insight into efforts to develop more accurate representations of oceanic heat content changes (http://159.226.119.58/aosl/EN/abstract/abstract568.shtml). The paper is quite technical in nature.

 

The paper swiftly came under fire from the blogosphere.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/ocean-heat-new-study-shows-climate-scientists-can-still-torture-data-until-the-data-confess/

 

The blogger charged:

 

Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970...

 

Once again, the climate science community has shown, when the models perform poorly, they won’t question the science behind the models, they are more than happy to manufacture warming by adjusting the data to meet or exceed the warming rate of the models.

 

These are strong words and severe charges.

 

What evidence did the blogger provide that Cheng et al. deliberately chose to adjust the data to fit their desired outcome?

 

What evidence did the blogger post showing that the climate science community is seeking to fit data to the climate model projections?

 

None. Nothing at all.

 

That some uncertainties exist regarding OHC and other aspects of climate science is not proof that the climate scientists are conducting themselves with a lack of integrity. Moreover, those uncertainties are nowhere near sufficient to render the basic understandings of anthropogenic warming uncertain, much less incorrect. Instead, the legitimate questions are limited to matters such as climate sensitivity (how much warming will result from a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases) not general climate response (whether rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce any warming at all).

 

The big questions have been addressed. There's no serious doubt in the climate science community that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will increase land and ocean temperatures. Moreover, all the major surface data sets show that such warming is ongoing (2014 set a new record and 2015 appears on track to break that record). Perhaps unable to debunk what the data is showing, the attacks have increasingly shifted to the data itself to try to delegitimize the data as an indirect means of undercutting widely-accepted understanding of the climate.

 

IMO, the Climate Contrarian side would do far better if it tried to provide credible and sufficient data for peer-review to advance its position. Fusillades of pointed rhetoric fired from behind the ramparts of blogs that data is "manipulated" or worse don't cut it. Anyone can do that. It takes real effort to research, develop, and submit papers for peer review. Attacking the integrity of those who devote enormous time and effort in research to produce papers submitted for peer review is even worse.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I don't understand why we're even discussing blog science here? All this thread will do is give the aforementioned denier blog more views, hence boosting it on google searches, etc.

I think the best thing to do is ignore blog science completely, especially on theoretical topics like climate change (which are open to manipulation, misinterpretation, etc).

[JBG]

What evidence did the blogger provide that Cheng et al. deliberately chose to adjust the data to fit their desired outcome?

 

What evidence did the blogger post showing that the climate science community is seeking to fit data to the climate model projections?

 

None. Nothing at all.

 

That some uncertainties exist regarding OHC and other aspects of climate science is not proof that the climate scientists are conducting themselves with a lack of integrity. Moreover, those uncertainties are nowhere near sufficient to render the basic understandings of anthropogenic warming uncertain, much less incorrect. Instead, the legitimate questions are limited to matters such as climate sensitivity (how much warming will result from a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases) not general climate response (whether rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce any warming at all).

 Given the respect that I normally hold your opinions, it is hard for me normally to argue with you. This, respectfully, is an exception.  The scientific community's funding is largely from public and/or academic sources. Is it not the case that if there were no warming problem there'd be nothing to study and thus no reason to pay for research? I  had always thought that the burden of proof was on those alleging the existence of a problem, not on those trying to prove a negative.

 

The big questions have been addressed. There's no serious doubt in the climate science community that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will increase land and ocean temperatures. Moreover, all the major surface data sets show that such warming is ongoing (2014 set a new record and 2015 appears on track to break that record). Perhaps unable to debunk what the data is showing, the attacks have increasingly shifted to the data itself to try to delegitimize the data as an indirect means of undercutting widely-accepted understanding of the climate.

What I still want to know and no one has answered is why, given the relative lack of changes in sensible weather in cities with long-running temperature records is it that people have come to a conclusion that there is warming?  Back in the 1970's it was cooling that was seen as the threat.

 

I agree that there are reasons not to spew junk into the atmosphere, the waters or overall the "global commons."  Are the people that favor environmental preservation risking credibility if, say, global temperatures start declining and the decline cannot be "adjusted" away?

 

I will concede there are reasons to adjust. For example, KNYC has shown a drop in the summertime maxima over the years as Central Park has become quite forested. Only an idiot would ignore that.  But the sensible weather in a New York City summer or winter is similar to that of Revolutionary War times. Where's the warming?

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

since were talking about blogger like material.

 

tu hut -

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11762680/Three-scientists-investigating-melting-Arctic-ice-may-have-been-assassinated-professor-claims.html

 

Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence

[StudentOfClimatology]

since were talking about blogger like material.

tu hut -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11762680/Three-scientists-investigating-melting-Arctic-ice-may-have-been-assassinated-professor-claims.html

Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence

Probably not murder.

His suspicions drew outrage on Saturday from Prof Laxon’s partner, who was also a close friend of Dr Giles. When told what Prof Wadhams had said, Fiona Strawbridge, head of e-Learning at UCL, replied: “Good god. All of this is completely outrageous and very distressing.”

The couple had been staying in a friends’ converted mill in the Essex countryside when her partner fell down the stairs in the early hours of New Year’s Day. He died the next day from head injuries.

“It was very steep stairs and I heard Seymour fall,” said Ms Strawbridge, “It is just completely bonkers [to suggest murder].

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

the truth can only be manipulated for so long..

[donsutherland1]

 Given the respect that I normally hold your opinions, it is hard for me normally to argue with you. This, respectfully, is an exception.  The scientific community's funding is largely from public and/or academic sources. Is it not the case that if there were no warming problem there'd be nothing to study and thus no reason to pay for research? I  had always thought that the burden of proof was on those alleging the existence of a problem, not on those trying to prove a negative.

 

What I still want to know and no one has answered is why, given the relative lack of changes in sensible weather in cities with long-running temperature records is it that people have come to a conclusion that there is warming?  Back in the 1970's it was cooling that was seen as the threat.

 

I agree that there are reasons not to spew junk into the atmosphere, the waters or overall the "global commons."  Are the people that favor environmental preservation risking credibility if, say, global temperatures start declining and the decline cannot be "adjusted" away?

 

I will concede there are reasons to adjust. For example, KNYC has shown a drop in the summertime maxima over the years as Central Park has become quite forested. Only an idiot would ignore that.  But the sensible weather in a New York City summer or winter is similar to that of Revolutionary War times. Where's the warming?

The observed warming has occurred on a global basis, though there is regional and local variation. Central Park offers an example of a localized variation. Moreover, New York City might show less response than some other cities, because its climate is influenced quite a bit by the nearby Atlantic Ocean.

 

If global temperatures were to begin a statistically significant decline, the cause would need to be addressed. If such a decline coincided with a rapid buildup of particulate matter in the atmosphere, then that wouldn't challenge the contemporary understanding. If, on the other hand, no known internal variable or variable that influences external forcing were found, that would raise some profound questions.

 

When it comes to policy making, policy makers have to deal with myriad trade-offs. Science is just one of a number of influences on policy. If policy changes consistent with scientific understanding were expected to materially reduce economic growth with related adverse impacts on incomes, employment, social welfare expenditures, etc., policy makers could well rationally decide that the costs exceeded the benefits. As a result, policy makers will almost certainly expect a higher level of confidence before making substantial changes.

[JBG]

The observed warming has occurred on a global basis, though there is regional and local variation. Central Park offers an example of a localized variation. Moreover, New York City might show less response than some other cities, because its climate is influenced quite a bit by the nearby Atlantic Ocean.

 

If global temperatures were to begin a statistically significant decline, the cause would need to be addressed. If such a decline coincided with a rapid buildup of particulate matter in the atmosphere, then that wouldn't challenge the contemporary understanding. If, on the other hand, no known internal variable or variable that influences external forcing were found, that would raise some profound questions.

 

When it comes to policy making, policy makers have to deal with myriad trade-offs. Science is just one of a number of influences on policy. If policy changes consistent with scientific understanding were expected to materially reduce economic growth with related adverse impacts on incomes, employment, social welfare expenditures, etc., policy makers could well rationally decide that the costs exceeded the benefits. As a result, policy makers will almost certainly expect a higher level of confidence before making substantial changes.

I appreciate the response. But has, for example, Chicago or St. Louis weather (other cities with long-running records and inhabited for lengthy periods of time) shown a measurable change in sensible weather? I just don't know.

 

However, inland Civil War and Revolutionary War battles featured weather very similar to modern times. I am a "history buff skeptic" in other words.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

 

If global temperatures were to begin a statistically significant decline, the cause would need to be addressed. If such a decline coincided with a rapid buildup of particulate matter in the atmosphere, then that wouldn't challenge the contemporary understanding. If, on the other hand, no known internal variable or variable that influences external forcing were found, that would raise some profound questions.

 

 

 

the deniers only hope at this point is the sunspot theory....maybe the sun will save em in the bottom of the 9th. 

[csnavywx]

I appreciate the response. But has, for example, Chicago or St. Louis weather (other cities with long-running records and inhabited for lengthy periods of time) shown a measurable change in sensible weather? I just don't know.

 

However, inland Civil War and Revolutionary War battles featured weather very similar to modern times. I am a "history buff skeptic" in other words.

Having grown specialty crops here and lived here most of my life, I can say with certainty: Yes, yes it has. After a cooling period from the mid-50s to mid-80s (attributed to increasing SO2 emissions from the industrial centers here in the Midwest, which still give us LOTS of hazy days), it has warmed significantly since then... to the tune of 1.5-2.0F in annual average temperatures. Rainfall has also increased, from a relatively stable 35-37"/yr in 1900-1980 to about 40" a year today. However, rainfall variability has also increased. As a kind of proxy for extreme rains, 8 of the top 20 river crests in STL have all occurred since 1990 (that record stretches back to the 1840s).

 

Personally (and more anecdotally) I've lost TWO complete crops in the last 4 seasons to extremes. First in 2012 to record heat and a paltry, record-low May-July rainfall of <5". Then this year, with the wettest June on record and a stunning 21" of rain so far in the same period, causing a proliferation of fungal infections and insect pests. It's a nightmare trying to deal with this from a farmer's point of view and increasing temperatures in tandem with further increases in rainfall variability will only make it worse.

[donsutherland1]

I appreciate the response. But has, for example, Chicago or St. Louis weather (other cities with long-running records and inhabited for lengthy periods of time) shown a measurable change in sensible weather? I just don't know.

 

However, inland Civil War and Revolutionary War battles featured weather very similar to modern times. I am a "history buff skeptic" in other words.

The questions you raise are quite different from the assertions made by some bloggers e.g., the one highlighted at the beginning of this thread. On a separate point, some of the weather information in Ludlum's books, not to mention diaries and other written accounts, are quite interesting.

[frontranger8]

Recently, a new paper came out that provides additional insight into efforts to develop more accurate representations of oceanic heat content changes (http://159.226.119.58/aosl/EN/abstract/abstract568.shtml). The paper is quite technical in nature.

 

The paper swiftly came under fire from the blogosphere.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/ocean-heat-new-study-shows-climate-scientists-can-still-torture-data-until-the-data-confess/

 

The blogger charged:

 

Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970...

 

Once again, the climate science community has shown, when the models perform poorly, they won’t question the science behind the models, they are more than happy to manufacture warming by adjusting the data to meet or exceed the warming rate of the models.

 

These are strong words and severe charges.

 

What evidence did the blogger provide that Cheng et al. deliberately chose to adjust the data to fit their desired outcome?

 

What evidence did the blogger post showing that the climate science community is seeking to fit data to the climate model projections?

 

None. Nothing at all.

 

That some uncertainties exist regarding OHC and other aspects of climate science is not proof that the climate scientists are conducting themselves with a lack of integrity. Moreover, those uncertainties are nowhere near sufficient to render the basic understandings of anthropogenic warming uncertain, much less incorrect. Instead, the legitimate questions are limited to matters such as climate sensitivity (how much warming will result from a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases) not general climate response (whether rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce any warming at all).

 

The big questions have been addressed. There's no serious doubt in the climate science community that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will increase land and ocean temperatures. Moreover, all the major surface data sets show that such warming is ongoing (2014 set a new record and 2015 appears on track to break that record). Perhaps unable to debunk what the data is showing, the attacks have increasingly shifted to the data itself to try to delegitimize the data as an indirect means of undercutting widely-accepted understanding of the climate.

 

IMO, the Climate Contrarian side would do far better if it tried to provide credible and sufficient data for peer-review to advance its position. Fusillades of pointed rhetoric fired from behind the ramparts of blogs that data is "manipulated" or worse don't cut it. Anyone can do that. It takes real effort to research, develop, and submit papers for peer review. Attacking the integrity of those who devote enormous time and effort in research to produce papers submitted for peer review is even worse.

 

While I don't agree with the bloggers conclusion, it is true that there has been a trend in climate science to look for flaws in the data if the data doesn't fit preconceived expectations. 

[AvantHiatus]

 Given the respect that I normally hold your opinions, it is hard for me normally to argue with you. This, respectfully, is an exception.  The scientific community's funding is largely from public and/or academic sources. Is it not the case that if there were no warming problem there'd be nothing to study and thus no reason to pay for research? I  had always thought that the burden of proof was on those alleging the existence of a problem, not on those trying to prove a negative.

 

What I still want to know and no one has answered is why, given the relative lack of changes in sensible weather in cities with long-running temperature records is it that people have come to a conclusion that there is warming?  Back in the 1970's it was cooling that was seen as the threat.

 

I agree that there are reasons not to spew junk into the atmosphere, the waters or overall the "global commons."  Are the people that favor environmental preservation risking credibility if, say, global temperatures start declining and the decline cannot be "adjusted" away?

 

I will concede there are reasons to adjust. For example, KNYC has shown a drop in the summertime maxima over the years as Central Park has become quite forested. Only an idiot would ignore that.  But the sensible weather in a New York City summer or winter is similar to that of Revolutionary War times. Where's the warming?

Pardon? Are you just saying the last 50 years of winter were like 2013 and 2014/2015?

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

i wuv u guys....even when were arguing....and drinkin SoCo.  

[FPizz]

I don't understand why we're even discussing blog science here? All this thread will do is give the aforementioned denier blog more views, hence boosting it on google searches, etc.

I think the best thing to do is ignore blog science completely, especially on theoretical topics like climate change (which are open to manipulation, misinterpretation, etc).

Perfect post. Thread should be locked. Lets all post blogs now from multiple sites...

[chubbs]

Recently, a new paper came out that provides additional insight into efforts to develop more accurate representations of oceanic heat content changes (http://159.226.119.58/aosl/EN/abstract/abstract568.shtml). The paper is quite technical in nature.

 

The paper swiftly came under fire from the blogosphere.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/26/ocean-heat-new-study-shows-climate-scientists-can-still-torture-data-until-the-data-confess/

 

The blogger charged:

 

Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970...

 

Once again, the climate science community has shown, when the models perform poorly, they won’t question the science behind the models, they are more than happy to manufacture warming by adjusting the data to meet or exceed the warming rate of the models.

 

These are strong words and severe charges.

 

What evidence did the blogger provide that Cheng et al. deliberately chose to adjust the data to fit their desired outcome?

 

What evidence did the blogger post showing that the climate science community is seeking to fit data to the climate model projections?

 

None. Nothing at all.

 

That some uncertainties exist regarding OHC and other aspects of climate science is not proof that the climate scientists are conducting themselves with a lack of integrity. Moreover, those uncertainties are nowhere near sufficient to render the basic understandings of anthropogenic warming uncertain, much less incorrect. Instead, the legitimate questions are limited to matters such as climate sensitivity (how much warming will result from a doubling of atmospheric greenhouse gases) not general climate response (whether rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce any warming at all).

 

The big questions have been addressed. There's no serious doubt in the climate science community that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will increase land and ocean temperatures. Moreover, all the major surface data sets show that such warming is ongoing (2014 set a new record and 2015 appears on track to break that record). Perhaps unable to debunk what the data is showing, the attacks have increasingly shifted to the data itself to try to delegitimize the data as an indirect means of undercutting widely-accepted understanding of the climate.

 

IMO, the Climate Contrarian side would do far better if it tried to provide credible and sufficient data for peer-review to advance its position. Fusillades of pointed rhetoric fired from behind the ramparts of blogs that data is "manipulated" or worse don't cut it. Anyone can do that. It takes real effort to research, develop, and submit papers for peer review. Attacking the integrity of those who devote enormous time and effort in research to produce papers submitted for peer review is even worse.

 

The problem is they can't produce credible and sufficient data for peer review.  So the only alternative is to make up information and post it in a blog. The contrarian communication strategy is more effective than you would think. Look at how frequently allegations of conspiracy, bad faith  or incompetence of climate scientists are posted here. We all tend to believe stories that support our world view.

[donsutherland1]

FWIW, Bloomberg.com has posted graphics showing the temperature impact of natural forcings (solar, earth's orbit, volcanoes) and the growing gap between the observed warming that has been occurring:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

[ben4vols]

FWIW, Bloomberg.com has posted graphics showing the temperature impact of natural forcings (solar, earth's orbit, volcanoes) and the growing gap between the observed warming that has been occurring:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

 

Correlation vs Causation.  There are still many unknown variables and too many assumptions.  Unreliable temperature, SST, etc., datasets.  Dr. Spencer continues to show a climate sensitivity of 1.3-1.5C.  About half of what the IPCC predicts. 

 

It is very interesting to see the correlation between the road AGW has taken and the road the Diet Heart Hypothesis/Lipid Hypothesis from Dr. Keys took 60 years ago.  Scientists were so sure it was fat in the diet that was causing heart disease.  It correlated so well.  60 years later, in light of new data and understanding, we are now fighting to take down a wrongfully erected wall of pharmaceuticals and ingrained education. 

 

Those pushing AGW and their dire consequences could end up being correct.  However, I'd bet on the side of looking back 50 to 60 years from now and seeing where we went wrong in the science and fighting to take down the wrongfully erected wall of government mandates and wasting untold resources in fixing a problem that never ended up being a real problem. 

[Snow_Miser]

Correlation vs Causation. There are still many unknown variables and too many assumptions. Unreliable temperature, SST, etc., datasets. Dr. Spencer continues to show a climate sensitivity of 1.3-1.5C. About half of what the IPCC predicts.

It is very interesting to see the correlation between the road AGW has taken and the road the Diet Heart Hypothesis/Lipid Hypothesis from Dr. Keys took 60 years ago. Scientists were so sure it was fat in the diet that was causing heart disease. It correlated so well. 60 years later, in light of new data and understanding, we are now fighting to take down a wrongfully erected wall of pharmaceuticals and ingrained education.

Those pushing AGW and their dire consequences could end up being correct. However, I'd bet on the side of looking back 50 to 60 years from now and seeing where we went wrong in the science and fighting to take down the wrongfully erected wall of government mandates and wasting untold resources in fixing a problem that never ended up being a real problem.

You would have to ignore a substantial mountain of evidence to claim that a 1.3 K sensitivity is more likely than a 1.5-4.5 K sensitivity.

[ben4vols]

You would have to ignore a substantial mountain of evidence to claim that a 1.3 K sensitivity is more likely than a 1.5-4.5 K sensitivity.

 

60 years ago one would've had to ignore a substantial amount of evidence that dietary fat was a leading indicator of heart disease.  So much so that those that opposed it were largely ignored and their studies published in small obscure journals.  Sound familiar?

[ORH_wxman]

60 years ago one would've had to ignore a substantial amount of evidence that dietary fat was a leading indicator of heart disease.  So much so that those that opposed it were largely ignored and their studies published in small obscure journals.  Sound familiar?

 

 

We have a better understanding of the physics of the atmosphere in 2015 than scientists in the 1960s had on how dietary fat and heart disease are connected.

 

There's definitely uncertainty, but the body of scientific research is quite strong in supporting an equilibirum climate sensitivity of >1.5C.

[mitchnick]

I don't know who to believe. There's too much money at stake on both sides for me to feel certain. Many otherwise honorable people will do many dishonorable things for money. And to be certain of the total net consequences for any particular location from either global warming or cooling are speculative to say the least. There will be losers and winners to a warming or cooling climate. We are NOT that smart to figure it out for certain at this point as the LR models have shown. But in the end, I just don't trust the politicians either....at all.

[csnavywx]

I don't know who to believe. There's too much money at stake on both sides for me to feel certain. Many otherwise honorable people will do many dishonorable things for money. And to be certain of the total net consequences for any particular location from either global warming or cooling are speculative to say the least. There will be losers and winners to a warming or cooling climate. We are NOT that smart to figure it out for certain at this point as the LR models have shown. But in the end, I just don't trust the politicians either....at all.

Sorry, but what money on the scientific "side"? Grant money?

 

If that's your worry, then you're basically deciding to not trust scientists because what they study is their profession and not their hobby....

 

There will likely be a LOT more losers than winners. We can be relatively certain of that, given the immense amount of literature on that subject. The winners tend to peak early in the process, too -- below the 2C "guardrail".

[AvantHiatus]

Sorry, but what money on the scientific "side"? Grant money?

 

If that's your worry, then you're basically deciding to not trust scientists because what they study is their profession and not their hobby....

 

There will likely be a LOT more losers than winners. We can be relatively certain of that, given the immense amount of literature on that subject. The winners tend to peak early in the process, too -- below the 2C "guardrail".

Interesting offbeat perspective. Does this imply something along the lines of certain regions observing more favorable climate for agriculture, etc or insurance companies profiting from the initial collapse?

[nflwxman]

What has concerned me more than anything recently is a whole bunch of peer reviewed papers that suggest glacial stability on both poles was dramatically overestimated earlier in climate science.  We focus so heavily on just surface temperature, but I think it's fair to say, surface temperature is likely to have the *least* amount of surprises in the climate system as decades go on.  

[donsutherland1]

What has concerned me more than anything recently is a whole bunch of peer reviewed papers that suggest glacial stability on both poles was dramatically overestimated earlier in climate science.  We focus so heavily on just surface temperature, but I think it's fair to say, surface temperature is likely to have the *least* amount of surprises in the climate system as decades go on.  

I agree. This is still an area of great uncertainty with enormous consequences.

[mitchnick]

Sorry, but what money on the scientific "side"? Grant money?

 

If that's your worry, then you're basically deciding to not trust scientists because what they study is their profession and not their hobby....

 

There will likely be a LOT more losers than winners. We can be relatively certain of that, given the immense amount of literature on that subject. The winners tend to peak early in the process, too -- below the 2C "guardrail".

Scientists get funding for their work or they work for someone. So there's plenty of opportunity for opinions to be swayed or to take a particular point of view wrt data (look at the way things are right now.) Moreover, the fact that scientists are professionals doesn't change the opportunity to interpret data consistent with the source of their funds...scientists have kids too! And I'm sure I've just scratched the surface.

[frontranger8]

I think what often gets overlooked in this discussion is what direction would the climate be going right now without AGW. The world was warming before AGW became a real factor. History has witnessed fairly rapid and major temperature changes before...the end result of AGW could depend a lot on if the globe's other factors move towards enhancing or slowing down the warming.

AGW didn't happen to a static system.

[nflwxman]

Pretty sure every climate model has us cooling the last 40 years if AGW was not a factor, Frontranger. 

[ben4vols]

Pretty sure every climate model has us cooling the last 40 years if AGW was not a factor, Frontranger. 

 

LOL, climate models.  Really?