Global warming trend unaffected by 'fiddling' with temperature data

February 18, 2015 by Neville Nicholls, The Conversation
Global warming trend unaffected by ‘fiddling’ with temperature data
Despite adjustments to temperature data in the Arctic, the overall global warming trend remains the same. Credit: Flickr/P J Hansen, CC BY-SA

Attacks on institutions that keep records of global temperatures, such as NASA, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK Met Office, and Australia's Bureau of Meteorology, continue to appear in the press.

Recent articles have raised concerns about the temperature record in Paraguay and the Arctic. The Australian newspaper has published a series of articles on similar concerns about the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's temperature .

The thrust of these articles is that data adjustments, made to correct for biases caused by changes in location, exposure or instrumentation, have exaggerated the apparent trend.

A bemusing debate

For the scientists who identify, and adjust for, these biases in regional, national, or global climate records, this sudden burst of interest in our work is both bemusing and gratifying.

When this work began 25 years or more ago, not even our scientist colleagues were very interested. At the first seminar I presented about our attempts to identify the biases in Australian , one colleague told me I was wasting my time. He reckoned that the raw weather data were sufficiently accurate for any possible use people might make of them.

I begged to differ and my colleagues and I continued the work to document how the Australian climate had been changing. So now I'm chuffed that there is sufficient interest in the climate to have a public debate about the data and what climate scientists do with them.

In the old days those of us involved in this "rehabilitation" of weather data to monitor the climate published our methods and results in obscure meteorological journals, unknown and ignored by the public. Nowadays, as a result of the increased media interest, you can find descriptions of our work and results in blogs and the data (the as well the adjustments needed to correct for biases) are freely available to anyone with an internet connection.

The video will load shortly

Arctic answers

The ready availability of the data, and the , has encouraged other groups to improve on the efforts of the old timers. Among them is Kevin Cowtan from the University of York, UK, who is producing videos explaining how to access the raw and adjusted data and check what adjustments have been made, and what effect these adjustments make to the historical record of regional and global surface temperature. Cowtan, besides his expertise in computer crystallography, has some highly-regarded climate data science publications to his credit.

And his conclusions? That the adjustments (and there are a large number of them, to be sure) make essentially no difference to the global pattern of warming we have seen over the past century or so.

In some regions, the adjustments have tended to decrease the warming seen in the raw data, while elsewhere the adjustments increase the apparent warming (usually for well understood reasons and biases in the raw data).

But on a global scale the adjustments make almost no difference to the pattern of warming. The same conclusion has been reached by another group of "newbies" at Berkeley Earth.

So was my critic 25 years ago correct? Have we wasted our time trying to identify biases in the weather and climate data, and taking these into account in the time series of regional and global ?

In one sense he was – despite all our work the warming trend hasn't been changed. So we could have simply used the raw data to calculate over the past century.

But at least we know that biases in the raw data, such as the warming caused by increased urbanisation, have not "caused" global warming. Nor have the adjustments that have been applied to correct for caused by changes in instrumentation, exposure, and location.

Explore further: How to become a citizen climate sleuth

Related Stories

How to become a citizen climate sleuth

September 4, 2014

There has been much media commentary recently about the Bureau of Meteorology's efforts to use historical weather records to gauge how Australia's climate is changing.

Global warming's influence on extreme weather

December 12, 2014

Extreme climate and weather events such as record high temperatures, intense downpours and severe storm surges are becoming more common in many parts of the world. But because high-quality weather records go back only about ...

Recommended for you

Sea ice extent sinks to record lows at both poles

March 22, 2017

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached on March 7 a record low wintertime maximum extent, according to scientists at NASA and the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado. And on the opposite ...

Under the dead sea, warnings of dire drought

March 22, 2017

Nearly 1,000 feet below the bed of the Dead Sea, scientists have found evidence that during past warm periods, the Mideast has suffered drought on scales never recorded by humans—a possible warning for current times. Thick ...

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earl_decker_33
2 / 5 (25) Feb 18, 2015
Just plain old BS to justify their incompetence of claims of global warming. If they took the trouble to make adjustments that did not have an effect then why waste time in making these adjustments. Anyone with a common sense of intelligence can see that out of thousands of temperature adjustments that there is no way that the adjustments can average out to not make a difference in the original data. We are not stupid you morons with Ph.D.'s.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (23) Feb 18, 2015
Perhaps you should read the article earl. All the way through this time.
But at least we know that biases in the raw data, such as the warming caused by increased urbanisation, have not "caused" global warming. Nor have the adjustments that have been applied to correct for biases caused by changes in instrumentation, exposure, and location.


Oh, and another blow to Water Prfftt's mechanical warming "theory". It's not urbanization either.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 18, 2015
I can vouch for
When this work began 25 years or more ago, not even our scientist colleagues were very interested...
it was like hitting my head against the wall getting climatologist to acknowledge what even deniers admit today.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2015
So that begs the question.
Why falsify...er..fiddle with the data?
netprophet
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 18, 2015
It has been recently shown in Germany that the older mercury gauges read on average 0.9 deg C below that more modern gauges based on a a study by Klaus Hager a 44-year veteran meteorologist using instruments placed side-by side over a period of over 8 years. The older mercury gauges were replaced beginning in 1985 at Germany's 2000 metering stations finishing up in 2000. And guess when global warming began in Germany? 1986. Guess when it ended? 2000. Coincidence? And guess when Germany's electric costs began to soar from 14 cents per kwh to the present 29 cents? In 2000 when the country forced alternate energy down everyone's throat.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (19) Feb 18, 2015
If they took the trouble to make adjustments that did not have an effect then why waste time in making these adjustments.


Err ... because science seeks to find the truth perhaps?
And as the commentator says "But at least we know that biases in the raw data, such as the warming caused by increased urbanisation, have not "caused" global warming. Nor have the adjustments that have been applied to correct for biases caused by changes in instrumentation, exposure, and location."
ettubrute
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2015
Here is an experiment for all those that think global warming is no more than the temperature data being fraudulently manipulated. Take all of the thermometers in the world and place them in freezes. Observe to identify if all the world's glaciers have returned to the mass they had in the year 1900. Get back to us with your results on this experiment.
KDK
1.3 / 5 (16) Feb 18, 2015
You mean the global COOLING trend remains unaffected by altering data--based on Solar Cycle 24 and likely the Milankovitch ice-age cycle as well! You ideological and politically corrupted Big Science folks are shameless and pathetic!
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 18, 2015
Err ... because science seeks to find the truth perhaps?

The Pathological "Science" of the AGW Cult, where blatant falsification leads to their "truth".
Well, what is a desperate cult to do, when reality won't cooperate with their dogma.
Science Officer
2.3 / 5 (15) Feb 18, 2015
Just like Stalin said. It's not who votes that is important. It's who counts the votes.
lonnie_kempf
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 18, 2015
So a guy walks out to read a mercury thermometer and writes down the temperature at the prescribed time of day. That thermometer gets replaced by a hygrotherm , or thermograph, or whatever. He walks out to read the temperature and writes it down at the prescribed time of day, or it's recorded automatically.

And we can't, don't, didn't calibrate the instrumentation so we get accurate data on the first order, but rather have to make adjustments?? Sounds to me like somebody is wingin' it.

I mean, what? Did the USHCN send these guys out on burros to change, site, calibrate the instrumentation? Oh, yea, it's not calibrated, that's why we have to "adjust" it. What a crock!
outersphere
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 18, 2015
Err ... because science seeks to find the truth perhaps?

The Pathological "Science" of the AGW Cult, where blatant falsification leads to their "truth".
Well, what is a desperate cult to do, when reality won't cooperate with their dogma.


When the facts and methodology are made clear and your nose is rubbed in it, you still fail to comprehend the "why" it is not only OK to adjust data but actually provides a better picture of reality by doing so.
bradalb0
2.1 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2015
So one Priest of the Church of Man Caused Climate Change says that another Priest in the same Church has NOT been fiddling around inappropriately. And even if he was fiddling around, it doesn't make any difference. Besides, most of the other Priests fiddle around too. Oh yeah, I should have clarified. With the numbers, with the numbers.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
So one Priest of the Church of Man Caused Climate Change says that another Priest in the same Church has NOT been fiddling around inappropriately. And even if he was fiddling around, it doesn't make any difference. Besides, most of the other Priests fiddle around too. Oh yeah, I should have clarified. With the numbers, with the numbers.
ROTFLMAO!

I wish I could give a 100 stars!

MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
The problem with "fiddling" with the numbers is that you can create a trend but you cannot maintain it. Thus, we have "The Pause". All Ponzi schemes come to an explosive end.

Don't try to tell me that science is pure and that agreement is proof of anything. Just look at how many people low fat, high carb diets have killed. Look at all the fraud that occurs in drug trials. Poor science is everywhere and $$$$ are the catalyst that drives the system.
rlladbury
4 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2015
Good Lord, They make the corrections because they correct known errors in the record, not because of anything to do with the trend. The conspiracy theorists are imbeciles.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2015
"They make the corrections because they correct known errors in the record......"

It is these "corrections" that created the trend.
RWT
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2015
So Arch Bishop Cowtan simply says that the trend has not been changed by the adjustments to the data, sometimes decades after they were recorded, without showing any proof for that statement and not surprisingly that is good enough for the indoctrinated. Well, it's not good enough for the people that believe their lying eyes. We've seen the temperature reconstruction change time and time again and most of the time the past becomes cooler with every adjustment. I think I'll believe my eyes instead of the sermon. Or better yet, I'll believe the multi million dollar satellite data, which climate scientists were clamoring about needing back in the 60s, but choose to ignore today because of its inconvenience to the dogma.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
When the facts and methodology are made clear and your nose is rubbed in it, you still fail to comprehend the "why" it is not only OK to adjust data but actually provides a better picture of reality by doing so.

Hmm.... someone needs a reality check. Now run along, that Kool-Aid won't drink itself.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Feb 19, 2015
"They make the corrections because they correct known errors in the record......"

It is these "corrections" that created the trend.


The following links are explanations of what has been done to data and why. The first is actually from a "sceptic" site - Judith Curry's.

https://curryja.f...land.png
http://variable-v...ing.html

You can see from the second link especially, that the changes have actually reduced the warming trend because of the need to warm, SST's due being sampled from a bucket on deck (evaporative cooling). And zero difference from '80.

If you don't believe the graphs then download the data an do it for yourself.
Oh, another thing it was deniers that called for data correction.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2015
Deniers are motivated by pure political prejudice. I'll bet most of them got fooled, suckered by those screams of "WMD!", and assume we are all fools emotionally vulnerable to manipulation.

There is simply no evidence that this is not occurring.

Deniers seem to also tar us with the brush of their own character, and assume we all cheat and lie like they do in their own professions, such as finance, business, religion, law, and politics.

In science even fudging is death to one's career, unlike the fields above.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
Only the fiddle-dee-dums aka AGW Chicken Littles would be fooled by this blatant fraud.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2015
The moniker "antigoricle" is an admission of politically-motivated opinions.

No credibility need be granted.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2015
cjn
2.4 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2015
I think part of the concern that the author of this piece missed is with the passing off of his "corrected" data as being original, historic (albeit not "raw") sensor data. Any scientist I work with would be affronted if they were sold a data set that was claimed to be original, when it was in fact altered. To say that it doesn't matter that you changed the data because the unaltered data agrees with your conclusion is the mark of hubris and arrogance.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2015
I think part of the concern that the author of this piece missed is with the passing off of his "corrected" data as being original, historic (albeit not "raw") sensor data. Any scientist I work with would be affronted if they were sold a data set that was claimed to be original, when it was in fact altered. To say that it doesn't matter that you changed the data because the unaltered data agrees with your conclusion is the mark of hubris and arrogance.

But that is not what was done, so this is a constructed argument and a fallacy. From the start the author advised his colleges that some data points needed to be adjusted, and he gave evidence as to why. He then presented both the raw and adjusted data points to prove his case. He never claimed to be providing original data points, the raw data points were made available to any who looked, and the coincidence that they matched in any event was not made by the author, it was pointed out to him.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2015
I think part of the concern that the author of this piece missed is with the passing off of his "corrected" data as being original, historic (albeit not "raw") sensor data. Any scientist I work with would be affronted if they were sold a data set that was claimed to be original, when it was in fact altered. To say that it doesn't matter that you changed the data because the unaltered data agrees with your conclusion is the mark of hubris and arrogance.

No, it "doesn't matter" because what was done was thoroughly attributed and notified to all.
Reasons and methods. Before/after data. Free for all to download along with the algorithm used to homogenize the data.
The fact that it makes no bloody difference to AGW theory whatsoever is not of interest to the denier community. They only wanted to spread more doubt. All deniers take what the shouters say and don't bother to check out the lie.
Human nature and if you are ideologically inclined to mistrust "authority" QED
OdinsAcolyte
2.2 / 5 (5) Feb 19, 2015
We change the world. The world changes us.
So it goes.
Get over it.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2015
Someone did look at falsified data before, but the AGW Chicken Littles rather remain ignorant and blind to the truth. Now run along that Kool-Aid isn't going to drink itself.
http://a-sceptica...ey-stick
elirabett2003
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2015
An important reason for adjusting biases such as station moves, etc. is to provide long time records of changes in temperature (and precipitation) which is necessary for regional and local planning.

Adjustments of raw data when biases have been identified is typical of science.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2015
So let me get this straight, all of the old thermometers were wrong and their readings need to be "adjusted" to conform to modern measurements. If this is true, where are the adjustments to the boiling point and freezing point of water that were measured using these old thermometers??????
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2015
So let me get this straight, all of the old thermometers were wrong and their readings need to be "adjusted" to conform to modern measurements. If this is true, where are the adjustments to the boiling point and freezing point of water that were measured using these old thermometers??????


MR:
I hope the penny has dropped with you by now, but if not here is the explanation.
The fixed-points are the same whether measured by past thermometers or present ones. That is not the issue. It is the nature of biases introduced with the change from mercury/liquid-in-glass to electrical resistance thermometers and also the changes of site and recording of max temp time (TOBS), that is the issue.
Past thermos and present ones are both accurate.

http://www.ncdc.n...ring.php

MR166
2 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2015
"The fixed-points are the same whether measured by past thermometers or present ones. That is not the issue. It is the nature of biases introduced with the change from mercury/liquid-in-glass to electrical resistance thermometers and also the changes of site and recording of max temp time (TOBS), that is the issue.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

What BS!!!!! So the mercury/liquid-in-glass takes 10 more minutes to stabilize and indicate the true temperature, BIG DEAL. As far as the siting issue goes, most sites today are located in urban areas verses the less urbanized sites of the historical sites. Thus, the historical temperatures of the older sites should be raised not LOWERED in order to have a fair comparison.

runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2015

What BS!!!!! So the mercury/liquid-in-glass takes 10 more minutes to stabilize and indicate the true temperature, BIG DEAL. As far as the siting issue goes, most sites today are located in urban areas verses the less urbanized sites of the historical sites. Thus, the historical temperatures of the older sites should be raised not LOWERED in order to have a fair comparison.


MR: there are 2 asymptotes of temperature in the diurnal cycle - a max and a min.
You are correct to say that electrical thermo's are more sensitive but any over read compared with a mercury thermo will be compensated by the lower min it will record.
Oh: and ask Richard Muller the (previously the sceptic's hero) climatologist who fronted the BEST study that failed to find the UHI effect for the Koch bros..... it was found that "the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero."

http://berkeleyearth.org/faq
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
Rig with all of the advancements in communications and electronics over the past 25 years there is no excuse for not having 1000s of new weather stations sited at remote locations. If they were really serious about detecting climate change these would be sprouting up like mushrooms. Until that happens satellite data is a more valid and unbiased source of information.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2015
Rig with all of the advancements in communications and electronics over the past 25 years there is no excuse for not having 1000s of new weather stations.......Until that happens satellite data is a more valid and unbiased source of information.

I agree to an extent. However when you crunch the numbers over a long enough period then the spacial sparsity gets washed out, as it were. So long as we keep comparing the same thing the same way. That hasn't been possible up to now as no one back in the 70'/80's reckoned on a climatological use.
Re satellite, I would have thought you would have investigated the enormous amount of "fudging" required there to "make" a surface temp. Suffice to say that UAH and RSS do not agree with each other.
However their warming trends agree quite well.
https://tamino.fi...s.com/20
Satellite meassuring techniques/problems:
http://www.skepti...nced.htm
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2015
"I agree to an extent. However when you crunch the numbers over a long enough period then the spacial sparsity gets washed out, as it were."

The problem lies in how the numbers are "crunched".

Real data in the SH is sparse at best and guessing the temperatures between points can lead to huge errors and biases. When a change of .01C leads to earth shattering "The hottest month ever." claims by government agencies we need to do better than that in the SH.
elirabett2003
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 20, 2015
So let me get this straight, all of the old thermometers were wrong and their readings need to be "adjusted" to conform to modern measurements. If this is true, where are the adjustments to the boiling point and freezing point of water that were measured using these old thermometers??????


Boiling points depend on atmospheric pressure and atmospheric pressure changes with altitude. An increase in altitude results in cooling. That is called the lapse rate.

Changes in the altitude of a station and the known effect that has on the measured temperature is one of the principle things that has to be taken into account to correct the record.

Another simple thing is called time of observation bias. It is warmer in the afternoon than the morning. The time of observation has a huge effect, and depending on the station and the station keeper, it often changed in the past. This was/is more of a problem with rural stations and station keepers than urban ones.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
"Changes in the altitude of a station and the known effect that has on the measured temperature is one of the principle things that has to be taken into account to correct the record."

Could please you post a link that proves this fact. Thanks! I have never been aware of this and am unsure of the magnitude of the errors induced by altitude of temperature readings.
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2015
Here is an interesting article on Kevin Cowtan's "fiddled" data.
http://wattsupwit...l-in-it/
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2015
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2015
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/


@MR166

It's not surprising one of the biggest knuckle draggers in Congress would be making baseless charges. He has proven himself totally inept and ignorant, any hearings are going to bite him in the ass.

The Daily Caller?

That explains a lot.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2015
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/
@mr
because the news never gets it wrong
http://www.pakale...0%99.jpg

or perhaps because no one in a position of authority who is stupid would ever abuse the position of authority to spread misinformation because that is not good politics, right?
Rohrabacher serves as the vice chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction over NASA and other agencies that monitor the Earth's climate.

Rohrabacher has long been critical of the theory of man-made global warming.
i love the leaked message
xpect there to be congressional hearings into NASA altering weather station data to falsely indicate warming & sea rise
— Dana Rohrabacher
because politicians never lie and are always out for our best interest
right?

MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2015
"because politicians never lie and are always out for our best interest
right?"

If that is the case, why trust NASA and NOAA's numbers since they are pretty much slaves to the funding provided by the lying politicians?

Government agencies publish the data that the government wants published.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2015
... why trust ...slaves to the funding provided by the lying politicians?
Government agencies publish the data that the government wants published
@mr
because it is all a big conspiracy to hide the truth right?

are they trying to take the focus away from the little green men in Area 51?

or so that you never notice the pyramids on the moon?

there is no freakin possible way that the entire WORLD will come together with THAT many people (the sheer number of scientists) from that many countries for a single conspiratorial event like that

the countries involved cannot even agree on a breakfast food and beverage when it is offered to them for FREE, and you think they will suddenly agree to conspire against actual science and spear their reputations because of... what exactly?

by all means, tell everyone about what it is!
money?
because there are so many billionaire climate scientists, right?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2015
funding provided by the lying politicians?


Well your lot do anyway.

So you'd rather believe it's all just a conspiracy by the world's Earth scientists (not just climate) to lie in order to gain a living?
Because they are funded by "lying politicians".

MR: do you have a "sensible hat"?
If so - try wearing it, and do some thinking. To most people it takes a millisecond to realise that that idea is bizarre.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2015
MR166
If that is the case, why trust NASA and NOAA's numbers


Climate science is an international collaboration of scientists - from every country in the world. The raw data for data sets such as HadCRUT are available for any one to access.

https://books.goo...;f=false

You suggest that the whole field of science is in on a grand conspiracy - to falsify data - and take your money. That is just nuts...
Bongstar420
2 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2015
I don't see how this shows anything about "cause." Any dumbass can tell "climate change." People have been dealing with it since we became bipedal.
ManintheMoon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2015
The problem with the climate change (once global warming) crowd is they act like climate change is an abnormal phenomenon for the planet which it's not and never has been. Then one here claiming just look at the glaciers. Someone place enlighten me since when have glaciers been static at any time in the history of the planet or for that matter the polar ice sheets. Seems there is supporting evidences of contraction and expansion many time over in the history of planet the it can't be all blamed on man. Sorry to hurt feeling here but by all technical definition from climate science we are still in an ice age, ice at the poles and glaciers still on the continents. As to correcting data by the climate experts how many time has this been done over the last two decades and also having to do major correction on their computer modeling? I have lost count. I do not deny climate change it common for the planet but I do not believe any one has proven the reasons behind the change.
Shootist
2 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2015
Nonsense. Mann's fraudulent hockey stick shaped graph only existed because he ignored the Medieval Climate Optimum.

Oh you mean recent futzing with the data. Politicians and business people go to jail for lying like that.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2015
Anything can be proven when you're able to "model" the data to fit the desired outcome. The true irony is even when they have free rein at changing the data to their liking they fail miserably at that too. These pathetic lying climate pseudoscientists are failures in every aspect of their pitiful obfuscation.
ManintheMoon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2015
greenonions
It is about the money,if the scientist do not product the data that supports their contentions that do not get funding. Can you tell us how many climate scientists are funding, out of their own pocket, their own research? How many have been caught putting out questionable conclusions from data that was clearly manipulated?
No it's kind of like when ozone levels depletion was all the rage. Yep, their was many in the field producing conclusion over and over how man was destroying the ozone. Then what was never told to the public that the largest source of depilation of the ozone which excides all others many times over, was the Sun. Yep seems that fact got missed. Oh now we know now that the earth is not the only planet with an ozone hole. Once again I do not deny climate change but no one has prove why the changes are taking place. I still suspect a lot of it is caused by that big ball of light in the sky call the Sun.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2015
I still suspect a lot of it is caused by that big ball of light in the sky call the sun.


Which highlights the problem doesn't it? You suspect!!! Oh - do you suspect that smoking does not cause cancer? Must be true right? Maybe you suspect that the ice sheets are not really melting - it is just a part of the conspiracy. You see - what you suspect means nothing. Printing what you suspect on a science site - simply demonstrates that you know nothing about science. You need data. But Dunning Kruger does not care about data - just what Dunning Kruger suspects.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 22, 2015
It is about the money,if the scientist do not product the data that supports their contentions that do not get funding.

Umm, this is nonsense. A scientist actually able to refute climate science would become incredibly famous and much wealthier than one accepting the science. In fact, scientists willing to claim that climate science is in error (even without proof) are able to make more money than one actually doing the science.
I still suspect a lot of it is caused by that big ball of light in the sky call the Sun.

Actually, the sun is trying to cool the earth (as are other natural climate forcings). We wouldn't be warming if not for the increase in CO2 from humans (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ).
ManintheMoon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
greenonions
Like there is zero evidence the Sun effects earth' atmosphere. Looks like you just post Dunning Kruger argument yourself.
zzz5555 Yep we have seen what happens to those scientists that have spoken out against the climate change fanaticism in the field.
This one is out there "the sun is trying to cool the Earth"?????????? I think you step off into the twilight zone with that one. Then again you have the right to believe as you wish.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
Manin
Like there is zero evidence the Sun effects earth' atmosphere. Looks like you just post Dunning Kruger argument yourself.


Where did I say that there is no evidence that the sun affects earth' atmosphere? What I was pointing out was your infantile attempt at science - by saying 'I suspect' blah blah blah. I suspect has nothing to do with science. You can suspect whatever you like - it is irrelevant. Just the same as 'I believe' blah blah blah. What is relevant is the data. Of course the sun affects the climate - which is why Milankovich cycles are important - but not relevant to the current warming trend -as they operate over about 100,000 year cycles.

I know you are but what am I arguments put you square in the ubavonatuba world.
philstacy9
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2015
I am skeptical of a theory that is supported by lobbyists instead of just by evidence.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2015
I am skeptical of a theory that is supported by lobbyists instead of just by evidence


Me too - so I looked at the evidence - and it is solid - the science is good. You should try it.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
Like there is zero evidence the Sun effects earth' atmosphere. Looks like you just post Dunning Kruger argument yourself.
zzz5555 Yep we have seen what happens to those scientists that have spoken out against the climate change fanaticism in the field.
This one is out there "the sun is trying to cool the Earth"?... I think you step off into the twilight zone with that one.

Do you know? I think this graph proves you right ....... and all the world's experts wrong.
Have you got your application for a Nobel in yet?
http://solar-cent....svg.png
Then again you have the right to believe as you wish.

Ah, belief. You'd know the meaning of that. However you shouldn't measure us with the same ruler as yours. Belief doesn't come into it. Science is the opposite of that - and it says just as the above graph shows as obvious, by application of empirical physics NOT models and certainly not belief. Do you have any science?
ManintheMoon
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
runrig and greenonions
All your jumping up and down has proven nothing to the current cause of climate change. The fact is no one knows! And if you guys are such experts and have such unarguable proof then we should be seeing you get your Noble prize soon,being the toast of climate science world and liberal media. Please do get on down with your bad selves! Just like me you have an opinion on the issue and have shown nothing to make your opinion more valid than others.
ManintheMoon
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
runrig and greenonions
If you guy believe in this non sense so faithfully than I want you guys to predict the "exact" weather in New York, Paris and Tokyo for two months from now. If you have such outstanding modeling capabilities of the earth's climate this should be child's play for you. Let us take what you believe as fact and put it to the test. Then again you know and I know that any exact long term model of earth's climate is outside the capabilities of any one on the planet. In addition the climate change scientists have been forced to admit that their own computer modeling cannot and should not be used for any long term prediction to earth future climate.
The fact is you can't show an long term trend or much less causation for current climate change So step up to the plate and prove us wrong by making the exact prediction for these cities. OnCe AgAiN GeT On DoWn WiTh YoUr BaD SeLvEs! Sure we will only get more blustering and subterfuge.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
mannin
Let us take what you believe as fact and put it to the test.


How hard is it to understand this simple sentence - "What you and I 'believe' is totally irrelevant"??

The fact is you can't show an long term trend


The fact is - there is a long term trend - that is just data. Want to see?

http://news.natio...ronment/

http://www.epa.go...vel.html

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

http://www.cru.ue...RUT4.png

So I have given you data - which supports the understanding that there is a long term trend (150 years approx). The temperatures are rising, the ice sheets are melting, the ocean levels are rising.

Your rambling about specific cities - shows that you have no clue about weather vs climate. Duning Kruger exemplified.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
If you guy believe in this non sense so faithfully than I want you guys to predict the "exact" weather in New York, Paris and Tokyo for two months from now.
You should take some time to learn what the difference between "climate" and "weather" is. Here is a primer for you: http://www.nasa.g...goPnF91Y
climate change scientists have been forced to admit that their own computer modeling cannot and should not be used for any long term prediction to earth future climate.
That's an interesting claim. Of course, given you don't understand the difference between weather and climate, you have probably misunderstood what was being said. If we know where you read it, someone might be able to explain to you what they meant.
OnCe AgAiN GeT On DoWn WiTh YoUr BaD SeLvEs! Sure we will only get more blustering and subterfuge.
I wonder if you realize how childish you sound?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
Mannin
you have an opinion on the issue and have shown nothing to make your opinion more valid than others.


Wow - we agree - your opinion and my opinion are irrelevant. I don't talk about my opinion - I talk about the data. You are the one showing a complete lack of ability to discuss the science - and total infatuation with your own irrelevant opinion.

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
So step up to the plate and prove us wrong by making the exact prediction for these cities. OnCe AgAiN GeT On DoWn WiTh YoUr BaD SeLvEs! Sure we will only get more blustering and subterfuge.
I wonder if you realize how childish you sound?


@ Maggnus-Skippy. Thanks, since I am not allowed to look at the stuffs he writes I would have missed it. I suppose the Skippy-With-Two-Moons thinks that "exact predictions" is the only way to die, he probably don't know a lot about how it don't need any "exact predictions" to make a GREAT BIG DIFFERENCE. It ain't about the "predictions", it's about the changes in the systems.

You know I am not the scientist like Skippy-With-Two-Moons isn't either so I might be wrong but it seems to me that it is the not being able to make exact predictions which will cause the biggest problems in the climate, the things we don't know about surprising us.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
When this work began 25 years or more ago, not even our scientist colleagues were very interested...
it was like hitting my head against the wall getting climatologist to acknowledge what even deniers admit today Um just where u liar about being a SCIENTIST, where did u get that claimed degree in Physical Chemistry ?

And U should have known already had u done your research, the so called debate re AGW has been going on for almost 100 years & long before you were born, granted in rarefied circles but nonetheless predates ANY of your self-centered egotistical claims of bashing you feeble head against any wall ?

How many technical degrees did u say you got - what, when & where 4 was it, what u doing ?

Why is it your posts dont have any aspects which betray facets of any sort of uni education ?

LOL Water_Prophet the little fetus who claimed :-)
antigoracle
2 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015
You should take some time to learn what the difference between "climate" and "weather" is.

-- AGW Cult Chicken Little, magganus
We all know, climate is when the falsified data supports the AGW Cult's dogma, and everything else is weather.
ManintheMoon
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2015
For all those claiming that weather has nothing to do with climate it's plain ignorant statement. Climate: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation. Weather has nothing to do with Climate?So do not us weather data from around the world and see how well your junk modeling work then. Admit it the modeling suck is highly manipulated to show what the Climate change fanatics want it to show. How many time have your heroes been caught doing this?
No proof just conjuncture and opinion are the best you can muster.
Nope you can't prove the cause of current climate change so it's not fact it's a belief and a opinion.Get overselves.
Also for you bumble Ira you had to take a powder on our last encounter guess you want another groove in that lip of yours! Oh your circle jerk buddies had to try and come out an save you last time.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2015
Elsewhere re the tragedy of Water_Prophet...

Water_Prophet claimed
This means all future increases in atmospheric temperature must have another powerful source. Not CO2!
I wonder what it could be?
I wonder Y someone who claims to be a Physical Chemist (PC) is impotent/clueless as to how to determine quantification of the most appropriate units of Watts per Square meter re CO2 or ANY greenhouse gas ?

As if Water_Prophet completely lied about his claimed degree as a PC ?

Why can't a PC determine energy in Joules by formulating the increase in thermal resistivity of CO2's absorbancy/re-radiation of long wave infra red to Space ?

What seems to be wrong with this Water_Prophet, who makes lots of egotistical claims re his multiple 4 technical degrees yet CANNOT talk like one, articulate fundamentals like one & evades any discussion on issues he cannot find addressed via google ?

Water_Prophet grow up, own up or AT LEAST prove your claimed credentials ?

Caught !
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
Maninthemoon
For all those claiming that weather has nothing to do with climate it's plain ignorant


Please show us exactly where anyone has said that weather has nothing to do with climate.

If you look for example at Maggnus' post (about 6 spots above this one) - Maggnus said on 2 occasions in this comment - that climate and weather are different. This does not mean they have nothing to do with each other. Do you not understand the difference between two factors being 'different', and two factors having 'nothing to do with each other' I will try to explain it in simple terms if you need - but it is something taught in high school science - and again throws huge questions up about your ability to be involved in this kind of discussion.

No proof just conjuncture and opinion


No proof of what? Did you look at the data I posted. I did not say it is proof of anything - but it supports the theory of AGW. Do you have better data or analysis? Show us!
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
I am skeptical of a theory that is supported by lobbyists instead of just by evidence.
@philstacy9
that means you need to get up off the couch and learn to read then

I would also be skeptical of the above
But if you have a reading level at or above the 8th grade US grade school average and can use Google and the internet, you would find that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the AGW and Climate Science theories

Notice that it is Climate Science, not climate pseudoscience?
perhaps you need to read this too? http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
For all those claiming that weather has nothing to do with climate it's plain ignorant statement
@Moonie
you are the only one making that claim
Maggnus has already pointed out that you can't tell the difference between weather and climate though, so it is not surprising
No proof just conjuncture and opinion are the best you can muster
umm...
maybe you should also learn to read?
http://iopscience...4002.pdf
http://www.scienc...5682/362
http://www.nature...65a.html
http://rspb.royal...20141856
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

No evidence, eh?
there are only about 25,000 more where that came from
care to go on?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
if you guys are such experts and have such unarguable proof then we should be seeing you get your Noble prize soon,being the toast of climate science world and liberal media. Please do get on down with your bad selves! Just like me you have an opinion on the issue and have shown nothing to make your opinion more valid than others.
@Moonie
That was so funny I spit coffee everywhere!
really!
i mean... the physics, evidence (see links above) and all that are not impressive to you (likely because you don't understand it) so you attack the people... OK THEN!

except that it is the other way around!
if YOU could prove, using the scientific method, that AGW and Global Warming is NOT real, then YOU would be getting the Nobel for being able to debunk all of the worlds climate scientists ( http://iopscience.../article )

But to do that you need evidence
and it is all against you

BIG whoopsie on your part

what's your next joke post?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
@Moonie
That was so funny I spit coffee everywhere!
really!
i mean... the physics, evidence (see links above) and all that are not impressive to you (likely because you don't understand it) so you attack the people... OK THEN!


@ Captain-Skippy. How you are? Yeah ol Two-Moons-Skippy has that effect on peoples.

I don't get to see his postums anymore but you should check out the stuffs he wrote to me over on the Pluto article. He slayed me before I could get my boot laces tied up, and had me on the ropes all day and all next day too.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
@ P.S. for you Captain-Skippy. I found him this is the one I was talking about. It was ugly what he did to me, he abused every which way from Sunday and cut me everywhere I stopped.

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
ou know I am not the scientist like Skippy-With-Two-Moons isn't either so I might be wrong but it seems to me that it is the not being able to make exact predictions which will cause the biggest problems in the climate, the things we don't know about surprising us.
Yes, and well put. There are changes coming, some of which we can imagine because of how obvious they are, but others which we can't imagine at all, and still others that will be different than we imagined. Our grandchildren are going to live in a very uncertain world, climate wise.
antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2015
How can they claim it's unaffected?
Where is all that heat from "cooking" the data going?
ManintheMoon
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2015
Yep Era like you weren't being equally abusive. Kind of like calling the kettle black. Then again you are always trying to say how your not a scientist but always tacitly try to prove your self other wise. Also Era aka Uncle Groove you were the one to claim to be a bad ass but wasn't. No crying the victim when you weren't! Then had to cry and play the victim to other.
Once again a lot of bloviating and chest beating but no proof to cause.
I never start an attack an one individual here but was attacked because some one did like my position to what I posted.
antigoracle had it at least right for some out here.
-- AGW Cult Chicken Little, magganus
"We all know, climate is when the falsified data supports the AGW Cult's dogma, and everything else is weather."
Yep let's ask the people in the eastern U.S. what they think about the Climate Change /global warmer fanatics claims since they are seeing the coldest temps in more than 20 years.

Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2015
Yep Era like you weren't being equally abusive. Kind of like calling the kettle black. Then again you are always trying to say how your not a scientist but always tacitly try to prove your self other wise. Also Era aka Uncle Groove you were the one to claim to be a bad ass but wasn't. No crying the victim when you weren't! Then had to cry and play the victim to other


Skippy, that is exactly why I signed up for the "Don't Show Me This Couyon's Stuff Anymore" club with you. You are so stupid that you are not fun.

Ask anybody here that knows me. I never whine or complain. I'm the one who just don't care. I'm not a part-time silly smart-ass, I am a full-time silly smart ass. So read 'em again so you can see me whine or complain about being a victim.

Cher, you are too stupid to play here, if ol Ira-Skippy confuses you, you don't have a chance with any of the smart-Skippys here. Back to ignore for you p'tit boug. But the silly looking pointy cap still looks good on you.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2015
"they are seeing the coldest temps in more than 20 years"

I love it when the goobers identify themselves. Somebody inform moonman how heat is the engine of weather, as heat determines the amount of water evaporated from the oceans, and which drive weather. The increased heating drives more extreme weather, not more balmy weather.

MM, Please go to school before posting.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2015
maninthemoon
Yep let's ask the people in the eastern U.S. what they think about the Climate Change /global warmer fanatics claims since they are seeing the coldest temps in more than 20 years.


When you bring up weather - do discuss climate change - you really show how much you don't know.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2015
MM, Please go to school before posting.


Did the Skippy-Two-Moons say something else silly?

A couple of days ago he told me "I've done field reports and scientific observations" and his astronomer buddy has the "PHA in astronomy".

That last part he told me was a typo mistake but considering the fact that the A is two away from the D and he even went to the trouble to use his other hand to make the A a BIG A, I have my doubts. It was when he was telling me about studying the Two Moons of Earth and fictional meteor belts around the Earth or some such foolishment.
ManintheMoon
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2015
Seems Uncle Groove your still following me around and commenting. Yep, you sure have shut me off. I think you like me!Thanks for the interest any way.
gkam one of your buddies claimed the Sun was cooling the earth. I thought cooling was the absent of heat! He he He heHe !
Once again climate change has and always will be taking place on earth and nothing any of you (zero) can't do about. Then I'm sure some of you chuckleheads well claim otherwise.
If we have just a basic understand of stellar evolution than the Sun is middle age from here on by all theories the earth will only get hotter. I sure some of you omnipotent ones will claim you can stop that too. You guys can stop jack as far as climate changes and sadly that's the lie that is being championed here.

ManintheMoon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2015
Here is my reply to the Henny Penny crowed
http://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4
And we are a product of Nature!
HeheHeheHEheHEheHe
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2015

I love it when the goobers identify themselves. Somebody inform moonman how heat is the engine of weather, as heat determines the amount of water evaporated from the oceans, and which drive weather. The increased heating drives more extreme weather, not more balmy weather.

MM, Please go to school before posting.
--gkamTard
Of course you do. It's the only way a moron like you can feel intelligent.
Now go find someone to read and explain the following to you.
http://wattsupwit...er-page/
ManintheMoon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2015
antigoracle
Now, now you know no showing the cherry picked data of the Henny Penny Crowd is not excepted here. Yep some here missed that NASA announcement last year that temperatures stop rising in the late 1990's. Oh that's right they only except data that they think will support their claims. antigoracle championing such heresy here will only garner you attack from Henny Penny crowd.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2015
@ManintheMoon

U really would look a lot smarter if u took note of a warning by the satellite data group RSS as found on this link, last sentence of first para - relevant to U:-
http://www.remss....eratures

AND
Considered issue of heat on a global scale ie Most of which is water (ie highest specific heat)
Here is a link re temps with CO2 re that agency RSS:-
http://woodfortre...ormalise

AND
Here is a link re main data suppliers & re ENSO
http://www.skepti..._All.gif

Oceans
http://upload.wik...2%29.png

Question:-
"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity Eg long wave infra red radiation to Space ?"

Question for deniers claimed scientists, how is it quantified in W/m^2 ?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2015
ManintheMoon muttered
Here is my reply to the Henny Penny crowed
http://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4
And we are a product of Nature!
Doh educated people already accept we are a product of & an intimate part of etc - so what ?

A prime Issue is *rate of change* & getting an essential education in Physics because, then u can understand and appreciate specific heat ie of oceans its 4000 times that of atmosphere (thanks runrig), which means even a small rise in ocean temps equates to very high heat increase.

Eg. Raise a Billion T of H2O by 0.01 deg C EQUALS rise of Air by 40 deg C for same heat !!!!

And whats more such essential physics education makes you virtually immune to becoming an unthinking mouthpiece of emotionally driven propaganda...

ManintheMoon exclaimed
HeheHeheHEheHEheHe
Ah I see U are a mere child, given to immature barks & still to approach high school - where physics & specific heat is covered (sigh) !
ManintheMoon
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
Mike_Massen
Do not get mad remember it's only entertainment!
Since some are willing to take it to a childish level let's play!
And you can prove that the rate of change we see now has never been seen before in the history of earth's climate? Totally unsupportable! Mike I believe in climate change, it's the norm, been going on for 4 billion years but do not hold that it has been proven to be caused by man. It's just one more cycle of many cycles in the climate history of the earth.
Yep the rate of change can be claimed also for the last 12 to 13 thousand years, and around 12 to 13 thousand years ago there was a damn big change. So are we are going to claim that it's man's fault and that caused the start of this rapid change too ? Really!
ManintheMoon
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2015
Mike_Massen
How about water vapor, the over whelming largest green house gas in earth atmosphere and it's effect on global warming? Also it's role in upper stratospheric warmer and cooling? MIke if you provide proof on directed data from this region of the atmosphere t
ManintheMoon
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
Mike_Massen
How about water vapor, the over whelming largest green house gas in earth atmosphere and it's effect on global warming? Also it's role in upper stratospheric warming and cooling? MIke if you provide proof and directed long term, total coverage data, from this region of the atmosphere than you have done some thing no one has ever done so far.
Also since water vapor is the is the largest green house gas in the atmosphere( like somewhere around what 90%) how do we reduce the amount of it in the atmosphere and it's effects? I am not going to play prove my equation game with you or spend time writing a dissertation on it to prove something to others and you.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
ManintheMoon claimed
Do not get mad remember it's only entertainment
No.
U don't seem to realise how immature, naive & ignorant U show yourself to be, esp as u misled others !

ManintheMoon claimed
And you can prove that the rate of change we see now has never been seen before in the history of earth's climate?
Ice cores hasn't shown it.

ManintheMoon doesn't get it
Mike I believe in climate change... but do not hold that it has been proven to be caused by man
This is Y u need education re CO2's long wave IR absorbance/re-radiation, its specific property re thermal resistivity has been known for > 100 yrs & never refuted !

Pls get a grip re Earth's energy balance, its simple

1. Total Solar Insolation (TSI) shines on Earth, a lot short wave (SW) ie visible
2. Earth converts SW to predominantly lonq wave (LW) infra-red (IR)
3, Greenhouse gases interfere with emission to space

Earth retains the heat
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2015
ManintheMoon claimed
Mike_Massen
How about water vapor (WV), the over whelming largest green house gas in earth atmosphere and it's effect on global warming?
Of course; WV has also risen & generally correlated with CO2 & both have irrefutable (IR) thermal properties as per:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Primary defining difference:-

a. WV has EASY path to earth via precipitation but,
b. CO2 doesn't, it will be around for >100 yrs if it ever reduces.

ONLY other source impacting Earth's energy balance is fossil fuel burning which according to a claimed Physical Chemist (PC) is ~0.1% of TSI BUT, that PC couldn't work out CO2's thermal resistivity in the same units of Watts per square meter to properly compare.

ManintheMoon others u raise have been covered ad-infinitum & by others better versed, simply do a combinatorial search for posts by runrig, thermodynamics & Captain_Stumpy re CO2

This is Y physics education is so important, AGW not hard.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
..it was like hitting my head against the wall getting climatologist to acknowledge what even deniers admit today
Really ? Did u hit your head re your dumb, uneducated feeble claims re CO2 ?

What do we call those who refuse to prove a claim ?

Y is your write NOT commensurate with those claiming "4 technical degrees" as u do ?
Which institute & what years started please ?

Y aren't your uni degrees including claim of "Physical Chemistry" on your facebook page ?
https://www.faceb...er/about

Y is your CO2's effect claim of 0.00009W/m^2 some 16,666x Lower than wiki's 1.5W/m^2 ?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Y can't U prove your claim "business uses your results" ?

Y can't U qualify or prove ANY of your claims ?

Y don't U seem to have any integrity Water_Profit ?

Posts from the arbitrary claimers
http://sciencex.c..._Prophet
http://sciencex.c...avontuba

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.