[biker1]

Since you aren't a scientist, apparently have never published any papers, and appear to suffer from confirmation bias, I guess we can't expect you to understand much about the science or the peer review process. Short term (high wavenumber temporal fluctuations) variations aren't really worth looking at since they are implicit in the climate system. Longer term trends are what should be looked at. The anthropogenic warming of 1C is over decades. Roy Spencer has a 40 year satellite database. You know the one. You cherry picked a short period of his data and never referenced him. Very bad form and scientifically dishonest. Also, nothing goes through the peer review process very quickly - I know from experience. Regardless, read AR6. There are plenty of references in there. It sound like you have a reading comprehension problem as I never said there was any peer reviewed articles about last year. Strawman arguments are always weak and disingenuous.

Originally Posted by sounding

Then show the body of evidence ... peer-reviewed proof of how much man-made CO2 warmed the earth last year.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by biker1

Since you aren't a scientist, apparently have never published any papers, and appear to suffer from confirmation bias, I guess we can't expect you to understand much about the science or the peer review process. Short term (high wavenumber temporal fluctuations) variations aren't really worth looking at since they are implicit in the climate system. Longer term trends are what should be looked at. The anthropogenic warming of 1C is over decades. Also, nothing goes through the peer review process very quickly - I know from experience. Regardless, read AR6. There are plenty of references in there. It sound like you have a reading comprehension problem as I never said there was any peer reviewed articles about last year. Strawman arguments are always weak and disingenuous.

I'm not a scientist and especially not an expert. I'm just a data analyst. Scientists and experts are often self-anointed and problematic -- like Michael Mann. Remember ... Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

[biker1]

You can claim you are a data analyst but you aren't very good at it. You cherry picked 7 years out of Roy Spencer's 40+ year satellite dataset (which has a lot of short term variations) and picked a high starting point to try to make a strawman argument. This is very bad behavior and would get you laughed at in a scientific forum. A data analyst might have run an FFT over the data to start with to understand the trend. Since you admit you don't know the science, why don't you stop making false claims about a subject you clearly don't understand?

Originally Posted by sounding

I'm not a scientist and especially not an expert. I'm just a data analyst. Scientists and experts are often self-anointed and problematic -- like Michael Mann. Remember ... Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by biker1

You can claim you are a data analyst but you aren't very good at it. You cherry picked 7 years out of Roy Spencer's 40+ year satellite dataset (which has a lot of short term variations) and picked a high starting point to try to make a strawman argument. This is very bad behavior and would get you laughed at in a scientific forum. A data analyst might have run an FFT over the data to start with to understand the trend. Since you admit you don't know the science, why don't you stop making false claims about a subject you clearly don't understand?

Thank you

[sounding]

Originally Posted by biker1

You can claim you are a data analyst but you aren't very good at it. You cherry picked 7 years out of Roy Spencer's 40+ year satellite dataset (which has a lot of short term variations) and picked a high starting point to try to make a strawman argument. This is very bad behavior and would get you laughed at in a scientific forum. A data analyst might have run an FFT over the data to start with to understand the trend. Since you admit you don't know the science, why don't you stop making false claims about a subject you clearly don't understand?

How much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? Show me the data - cherries and all.

[biker1]

I believe you have a reading comprehension problem. Did you miss the part about longer term trends because the data is noisy? Do you not understand anything about data analysis? Read AR6 and then come back. Until then, feel free to carry on with someone from your Flat Earth Society.

Originally Posted by sounding

How much did man-made CO2 warm the earth last year? Show me the data - cherries and all.

[tophcfa]

Latest news, Travel chaos as snowfall blankets Europe, Munich airport brought to standstill, Private jets headed to global warming conference frozen on runway.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by biker1

I believe you have a reading comprehension problem. Did you miss the part about longer term trends because the data is noisy? Do you not understand anything about data analysis? Read AR6 and then come back. Until then, feel free to carry on with someone from your Flat Earth Society.

Just as I thought. The answer does not exist. There is no peer-reviewed proof that man-made CO2 has warmed earth. Note that during the China Flu shut-down, the rise of CO2 did not flinch - it just kept rising ... quite embarrassing to the global warming movement.

[sounding]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Latest news, Travel chaos as snowfall blankets Europe, Munich airport brought to standstill, Private jets headed to global warming conference frozen on runway.

Aircraft are having trouble flying through global warming.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by sounding

Aircraft are having trouble flying through global warming.

Sometimes you give me a genuine laugh.