No, they're not. The measurements are going up, not the adjustments. The citations you yourself provided show only tiny adjustments to the trend, every few years, going both up and down - while the measured temperature trend is ever upwards.

The calibration is not re-done from scratch every year. That would be meaningless, as you say. The satellite data obviously must be kept comparable, both to itself and to ground measurements, so that any trends can be determined. Give these people some credit, would you? not to mention the expert reviewers who checked their methods.

Similar data is in the HadCRU and NASA datasets, not just NOAA. They're all cross-checked with each other and with related evidence. Perhaps you should look harder.

No, it doesn't. Church's Fig 5 and Vermeer's Fig 3 Lower are the same graph, though Vermeer has a blue trend line drawn over the red measurement line. You can see clearly they have the same values at the same decades. Fig 3 Upper is the derivative of that trend line, showing rate of change.

Individual molecules of carbon are being re-absorbed - and re-emitted - all the time, by plants and by the ocean, in large quantities (around 200Gt/year). This is normally in equilibrium, with a slow growth from geologic weathering and occasional volcanism. The rates of natural emission and uptake aren't fixed however, due to numerous feedbacks, so the best we can say is between 30 and 95 years for much of it, with perhaps 20% persisting a lot longer (thousands of years). It depends a lot on the atmospheric concentration, and how much we keep releasing. This page discusses the issue and provides lifetime graphs.

Obviously that's not the case, because atmospheric levels have gone up sharply for 150 years See this ice-core data and more recent Mauna Loa data, showing a definite acceleration even in the last 50 years.
Regarding CO2 spectrum absorption, your questions were already answered by the citations I've given. Broad-spectrum sunlight is not only reflected, but also absorbed and re-radiated in infra-red (look up black-body radiation), which is then partially blocked by various greenhouse gases. This is well-understood science going back to the 1800s. and I'm not going to go over it all yet again. I've already cited papers that quantify the measured radiative forcing of CO2. There's no serious debate about this aspect, only about the feedbacks and resulting temperature rise.

Regarding ocean acidification, Turley et al 2006 is cited by many. Can't find a link to the paper, but here is a related presentation by Turley - see page 4.

Sorry, but I no longer have the time to spend with long explanations. It's taking too much time from my work. If the many peer-reviewed papers I've already provided haven't convinced you of anything, then providing more won't help. Either you're unable to follow the studies I've cited, or you're unwilling to to accept them as valid evidence, despite peer review and cross-correlation with other evidence. You claim that the broad agreement among climatologists and scientific institutions is somehow not expert opinion, but dismiss it as "political" - yet your own decidedly non-expert doubts and admitted political preconceptions are more convincing to you? Sorry, I can't help you further.

Where the situation gets complicated isn't so much who handles the exploits, it's during the research.

You're a security researcher, you've got a couple of potential holes you're looking into; crash bugs you might be able to leverage into execution then chain them to break through a browser sandbox, say, but they're not yet ready for submission to the vendor. Then you travel overseas to a conference to present some interesting related techniques. You bring your laptop with some of your unpublished recent research on it.

And now you can be locked up for exporting secret weapons-grade exploit technology. Until the exploit is handed over, to the vendor or a council or whoever, any research is classed as a potential forbidden weapon.

For polar temperature measurements - don't forget we have satellites too. We're not relying solely on a handful of ground stations, but their measurements help confirm our satellite results.

I can't believe you're still confused about "the zeta joules". Earth has an energy budget, right? A near-constant amount of energy from the sun comes in (about 700 terawatts from memory), and a variable amount goes out. The difference in energy remains on the earth - in the atmosphere, but mostly in the oceans. Energy units are measured in joules, where a joule is one watt for one second. If we're measuring the ocean heat content in "zeta joules", that's clearly a lot of energy that is being stored. I have no idea why you find this so baffling, let alone "several other scientists".

Regarding sea level rise, look at Vermeer 2009 for example, specifically Fig 3.

You can see that not only has the sea level been rising, but the rate of change in the sea level has also been rising - and has more than tripled in recent years, due to faster ice melting.

Of course I'm not saying that. Please re-read what I did say. Water vapour blocks much of the outgoing energy, and CO2 blocks some of what's left. Their effect is added.

Sure, and the ocean has increased its CO2 uptake too (hence the acidification). But it's not nearly enough, hence our CO2 levels are still rising. Plant uptake would have to increase enormously to make a substantial difference, especially as it's a relatively small fraction of the total.

Heat moves through our atmosphere with both radiative and convective transfer (and probably a little conduction too). Heat cannot leave our atmosphere by convective transfer, as we're surrounded by a vacuum. Therefore, radiative transfer is the only way heat can actually leave our planet. That's why it's important.

Your citation is only an abstract, but models both convective transfer of heat to upper atmosphere layers, and radiative transfer as a Planck black-body radiator. It agrees that CO2 has a warming effect, though the amount calculated is much lower than more recent research (the exact figure is still being determined).

It's not so much wrong, as not really the point. Yes, there's a lot of overlap between CO2 and water. But even if atmospheric water blocked 100% of the radiation covered by its absorption spectrum (it doesn't), CO2 would still have an additional effect. And any overlapped frequencies that aren't blocked completely by water, CO2 will also have an additional effect.

The point is, degree of overlap is not the issue. Amount of outgoing energy blocked by CO2 is the issue. And the figure to look for there is radiative forcing, calculated as 3.7 W/m^2 (this article shows how to derive CO2 forcing from first principles, and compares it to satellite measurements). This is the raw effect that increasing CO2 has on our atmosphere (which is then complicated by numerous positive & negative feedback effects).

You haven't done the maths. Your gut feeling is not reliable here. Look at the science, not your preconceptions.

What evidence do you have that any scientific papers have misrepresented anything?

Unfortunately, without years of study and experience, that's simply not enough.

Your choices are: a) get enough experience in the field to be considered an expert, run your own evaluation on the massive amounts of data acquired in the last 30 years, then make an expert judgement of your own, or; b) listen to the many experts who have done exactly that.

Unfortunately, too many people choose c) none of the above, and make snap judgements on limited understanding of the field, and even more limited evidence. This is all but guaranteed to run afoul of preconceptions, political and otherwise. The Dunning-Kruger effect prevents most of these people from even realising how far off base they usually are.

Given your difficulty in even dealing with ocean heat content, you clearly can't choose a) yet, and you certainly shouldn't be choosing c)! (For reference, the specific heat capacity of water is 4.186 joules/gram C, so to calculate the temperature rise in C of [the top 2km of] the world's oceans, divide the energy input in joules by 4.186, and divide by the mass of the water. And try not to get the mass/volume conversion wrong this time ;-)

Unfortunately, it appears to me that you're under the impression that the basic science is still being hotly debated. It really isn't. The specific figures are, yes, but there has long been broad agreement among most climatologists about what's basically happening, and while the dissenting voices of the minority have so far entirely failed to convince their climatologist peers, they've managed to convince a surprising amount of the media and public, many of whom already had strong political (or financial) reasons for not wanting to accept the majority expert findings, and what that might imply.

If you still can't accept the scientific consensus, and you think the half-dozen surveys and studies that confirm this are basically incompetent and/or lying (despite passing peer review), even if you also dismiss all the IPCC surveyed papers as entirely manufactured (and therefore assume that all climatologists involved must be risking career ruin by deliberately misrepresenting the data) - how do you explain that almost all scientific institutions around the world also endorse the finding of AGW - and not even one dissents?

Um, well yeah. The temperatures on different planets are very different, even at the same pressure - as you'd expect, given all the other differences, like distance from the Sun, cloud cover, chemical composition and who knows what else. I'm really not sure where you're going with all this. It certainly doesn't show that "the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference." It just shows that there are a lot of factors that determine temperature. The pressure may be "apples to apples" but nothing else is.

And of course the temperature goes up & down with the pressure at different altitudes; that's the Pressure-Temperature law I linked to earlier. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what any of this has to do with the Greenhouse Gas effect.

What's different about CO2 compared to the other, stronger greenhouse gases like water vapour and methane is that it accumulates over a long time.

Water vapour is a stable quantity in the atmosphere (for a given temperature). Any excess simply precipitates out as rain. It doesn't increase, at least not until you start warming the air up.

Methane does accumulate, for a while - but it is broken down by UV light over a period of years, so it has only a short term effect as well. It can still be a problem (e.g. if melting permafrost like the Siberian Traps releases significant methane into the atmosphere, which is a real concern and could trigger other warming feedbacks), but it doesn't build up over a long time, so any direct effects of a methane pulse are short-lived.

CO2 takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere. This is done by vegetation, to a small extent, but the vast majority of CO2 uptake is done by the ocean. Even so, this is a slow process. CO2 has been building up rapidly in our atmosphere, and even if we stopped emitting ALL anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow, it would still take centuries to return to pre-industrial levels. Worse, much of that CO2 being absorbed by the oceans is being converted to carbonic acid, which is resulting in ocean acidification - a decreasing pH that we've been observing for some time, and is already having measurable results on sensitive ocean ecosystems.

Yep, that looks like a useful graph. It's certainly clear that water vapour has a bigger effect - but the primary point here is that CO2 also blocks outgoing energy. It's in addition to the effect of water vapour. Water doesn't "black out" the effect of CO2, it adds to it, trapping more energy.

While the water vapour effect is bigger, the CO2 effect is added to this - and that is steadily increasing, as the CO2 in our atmosphere increases. This is enough extra trapped energy to change the temperature equilibrium of our planet; we've done the maths. See e.g. Myhre '98 for how this is forcing value is derived, while Puckrin '04 compares our radiative flux models for a variety of greenhouse gas mixes with atmospheric observations, and finds them to agree well.

Have a look here for a comparison of the radiative forcing values of the significant greenhouse gases, particularly the Greenhouse Gases section and this graph; you'll note that CO2 has the dominant effect. Note also that water vapour isn't considered a forcing (cause of change) - while it traps more energy than CO2, that effect isn't increasing or decreasing - it's stable, because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is stable, and therefore is not a direct factor in the increase in temperatures we've been seeing.

However, if something else (like CO2) starts warming the planet, the warmer atmosphere will then hold a little more water vapour, which will increase its effect - in which case it will make the pre-existing warming effect stronger, as a feedback rather than a forcing.

It's not just "my" premise; it's accepted by the vast majority of climatologists and atmospheric scientists. The specific percentage of CO2 is not the issue; the effect of it is, and the changes in that percentage & effect.

Sure, because there can be other causes of warming besides CO2, such as orbital cycles. And this warming can trigger the release of CO2, e.g. warming oceans hold less dissolved CO2. So when something else warms the planet, CO2 release follows soon after - and then amplifies the warming through the greenhouse effect. 90% of the warming follows after the CO2 release. But none of this prevents CO2 from causing warming, if we release it into the atmosphere ourselves.

There have been such times in the distant past, yes - but solar output was significantly lower then. CO2 isn't the only driver of climate - solar output is of course a major factor, as are orbital variations. The last time CO2 was around 400 ppm was about 3M years ago, for a few thousand years - and temperatures then were about 2-3 degrees higher than now.

So don't listen to Al Gore. He's another example of that bad reporting I was talking about. Ignore the "progressive political elements" too. But don't let political biases blind you to what the science is saying!

Don't listen to Al Gore or Anthony Watts or even me - listen only to the papers that are cited. The deniers insist the alarmists are making it all up... who cares, only the science is important. If you read the cited papers themselves you'll find a refreshing lack of politics, unlike all the noise around the subject. Once a clear picture of what's actually happening is obtained, then we can worry about what to do about it (which is certainly political).

As for shutting people out of the discussion, that obviously hasn't happened - there's more noise on both sides than ever. But within the scientific circles, there's only one criteria for whether you get a voice - you have to have data to back your conclusion, obtained by solid methodology that passes review by your expert peers. If you don't have solid data, you don't get to publish doubtful conclusions. You'll have to agree that's for the best.

Anyway, this discussion's been fun & all, but I've spent way too much time writing all this out and finding appropriate citations. Please do read at least the abstracts and conclusions. If you don't find those convincing, then nothing else I say will help. Best of luck with it all.

Of course; there are other greenhouse gases too.

Citation most definitely needed for that claim.

Obviously, but distance from the sun only affects the level of incoming energy, not outgoing radiated energy. And it's also obvious that pressure affects temperature. This goes back to the 1700s. But this doesn't trap heat.

Where greenhouse gases make a difference is because they allow most of the incoming radiation to pass (which from our sun is primarily in the optical spectrum, and CO2 is invisible to optical light), but they block a significant amount of the outgoing radiation, much which has been absorbed then re-radiated at black-body temperatures, i.e. in the infra-red range.

If you don't like the Skeptical Science site, don't read it - just read the cited sources (that's what I've been telling you to do all along, if you recall). I merely provided the page as it has a good list of relevant papers, but if you can't even bear to go near it, I'm happy to list them here for you.

Show many any reputable atmospheric scientist who is questioning the basic science of the greenhouse effect. I'll concede that there are still ignorant people in the world who aren't up to speed on this, but if you want to include any old uninformed opinion, then there are still people who question whether the earth is round.. Let's not muddy the discussion by being over-literal, yes? Context matters. This is centuries-old science, dating back to the 1820s.

Now I think you're being disingenuous. When I said there was no question about the effect of CO2, I was clearly referring specifically to the well-established greenhouse effect, and there is pretty much no controversy about that in scientific circles (I'm largely ignoring uninformed opinion outside that, as I don't see that as relevant to the science). And as I said, there is still debate about how much this effect translates into increased temperatures on the surface.

Now you're going all straw-man on me. I'm not "simply dismissing" anything. I've provided citations to peer-reviewed papers for every single claim I've made - which is far more than you've been doing, I might add - and the few links you've provided have not challenged anything I've said, or even backed your own claims.

Let's start seeing some actual citations for your claims, because this conversation is ending up as one-sided as all the others. I've spent enough time providing you with verified evidence, and all you've done so far is change the subject.

The new link does show corrections to a single satellite dataset - but there's nothing there even faintly close to the 0.6 degrees/year you were claiming. There are both positive and negative corrections that are a fraction of that, as they discover and account for factors like orbital decay.

There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. Admit that and move on ;-)

Perhaps you should engage in further study, then - and until then, you'll have to accept that this evidence has been audited by expert reviewers, both before and after publication; by people who have enough experience in the field to understand what heat content is. This is how science works in every field.

That said, I don't understand your confusion. How would a temperature figure help here? Do you just want to see an overall degrees/year amount so you can decide subjectively if it's "significant" or not? It's rather more complicated than that.

That's because you're calculating from incomplete data. The 200 Gt/year ice loss figure I quoted was an estimate from a single paper that dealt only with the major ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. To get a more accurate figure for all the sea level rise inputs, you also have to factor in the melting glaciers everywhere else in the world. This is further complicated by the fact that ice melt in different areas can contribute quite differently to sea level rise (e.g. if it's floating, or if shrinking ice extent decreases albedo, resulting in warmer water and thus more moisture uptake in the atmosphere, to name a couple of factors). Then on top of this you have to include the effects of thermal expansion, which is around 25% of the total rise.

For a more detailed discussion, you could start with Meier et al 2007, which for example estimates that 60% of sea level rise actually comes from glacier melting, not including the two ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.

Take a look at Figures 5 through 7 in Church et al 2011, that I already linked to earlier.

Obviously satellite data doesn't go back that far, which is what Shepherd was looking at, but we have fairly good logs of tidal data going back hundreds of years. These are confirmed by sedimentary cores going back to 1300.

This is only looking at ice melt in some specific areas. A direct quote:

This is consistent with our calculations above, as it includes areas beyond Greenland and the Antarctic. But it does not include all global sources of sea level rise; besides, we can measure that directly.

What's more, the rate of sea level rise has itself been increasing. Prior to 1900 it was close to 1mm/year, but in the last 20 years it's been more like 3.2mm/year. Two separate papers, using different methodology, have both concluded we can expect around 80 cm total sea level rise by the end of the century (these are the conservative estimates; the higher end estimates are both almost as high as 200 cm).

Sorry, I thought the error was clear - you converted cubic metres to cubic kilometres incorrectly. I'll spell it out:

It should be 195.699 cubic kilometres of water, because there are 1000x1000x1000 cubic metres to a cubic kilometre, not 1000.

Thus, over 20 years this would be 3,913.97 cubic kilometers of water, and as the surface of the world's oceans is ~361,740,000 square kilometers, you would see a rise of 0.0000108198 km, or 10.81 mm.

We know exactly how much effect CO2 has on incoming and outgoing radiation, because we can measure it in the lab, and via satellite. We know beyond doubt that it allows broad-spectrum energy in, but blocks much of the Earth's black-body radiation from escaping again.

We have measured precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and we can calculate accurately how much effect it should have. That's how we know that CO2 is such a significant problem; see this page for empirical measurements, a discussion of the maths, and a graph of the Earth's radiative forcings (all with fully cited sources of course, which I recommend you follow up).

The effect of CO2 is unquestioned. What is still being debated is only how much does this affect us? At what rate will surface temperatures change as a result? This is complicated by the myriad feedback cycles involved in the climate system. Current scientific opinion varies between "this could be a real problem" to "if we don't do something ASAP we're in for a very unhappy time".

No, it really isn't. ICS lets a user connect to a PC and access the internet through that PC. The PC becomes an access point.

WiFi Sense lets your friends connect directly to your router, by securely sharing its details with them. Your PC doesn't even have to be on.

This is how it's possible for your friends to share those router details with their friends. Win10 doesn't know it's your router and not theirs, it will let anyone with the password enable WiFi Sense sharing.

Because if your friends can connect to your network, and they have WiFi Sense enabled, then access to your network is shared with all of their Facebook friends.

So you have no control over who now get access to your network. Is that clear enough yet?

And making sure nobody who has access to your wifi ever enables it either. Best of luck!

Every time you give a friend your password, you have to make certain they don't have their Wifi Sense option enabled, or the same situation arises. It's also possible for them to opt into Wifi Sense for your network details any time afterwards too, so you better remain on good terms with them.

There's a reason that Microsoft added the ludicrous option of opting out via your SSID - it's because there's simply no other way to be certain this doesn't happen to you.

The problem is, if I let any of my friends near my beer, they could easily end up inviting all their Facebook friends to whizz in my ale. And the only way to scare them off is to write "_OPTOUT" in large letters on my favourite beer mug.

Here's the thing: You can leave your box unchecked - but if ANY of your friends have access to your wifi, and *their* box is checked, then all their Facebook friends will also get access to your wifi.

And the only way you can prevent this is to append "_optout" to your SSID.