Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Conan71]

There's plenty of room for cynicism or doubt.  Saying skeptics suffer from cognitive dissonance is a pretty strong characterization don't you think? It's almost as bad as the pejorative "climate change deniers".  Denying sea levels are rising would be a good example of cognitive dissonance if the black and white data shows average sea levels have increased over 30 years or whatever.  Arguing about how or why it is happening is natural human curiosity, IMO.

I'm somewhere between man-made change and climatological cycles as to what our climate has been doing specifically since the industrial revolution.  I have a brain which is constantly seeking new information and doesn't settle on spoon-fed pap so I have my doubts in both directions but I'm always open to new information.

I also believe someone who is hired to do a specific job will do what they are paid to do given a certain set of evidence.  As an attorney, when a client pays you to defend them in a civil or criminal case, even if the evidence suggests your client may be guilty or negligent, you were still paid to get others to reach a conclusion your client was not guilty or negligent with the evidence you have on hand.  In other words, you will present the evidence in such a way to try and reach the conclusion your client wanted when they hired you.

Let's put it this way:  If you were awarded a grant which would cover your living expenses for ten years to study the eating habits of zebras, you are going to be looking at zebras not horses.  If the wording of your grant award were to prove glacial melting trends, you are going to be looking for and documenting areas where ice is retreating, not accumulating.

Read any non-media-generated articles on climate change and there are still many "probably", "possibly", "could be" and "maybe" to make one question as to how settled the science is to global warming er climate change.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Speaking to ice advance and retreat:

"While scientists have observed some stronger-than-normal pressure systems – which increase winds – over the last month or so, that element alone is probably not the reason for this year's record extent, Meier said. To better understand this year and the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice, scientists are looking at other possibilities as well.

Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier, Parkinson said. Or changes in water circulation patterns, bringing colder waters up to the surface around the landmass, could help grow more ice.

Snowfall could be a factor as well, Meier said. Snow landing on thin ice can actually push the thin ice below the water, which then allows cold ocean water to seep up through the ice and flood the snow – leading to a slushy mixture that freezes in the cold atmosphere and adds to the thickness of the ice. This new, thicker ice would be more resilient to melting.

Five new NASA Earth science missions are launching in 2014 to expand our understanding of Earth's changing climate and environment.
NASA's "Earth Right Now" website

"There hasn't been one explanation yet that I'd say has become a consensus, where people say, 'We've nailed it, this is why it's happening,'" Parkinson said. "Our models are improving, but they're far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models."

For Antarctica, key variables include the atmospheric and oceanic conditions, as well as the effects of an icy land surface, changing atmospheric chemistry, the ozone hole, months of darkness and more.

"Its really not surprising to people in the climate field that not every location on the face of Earth is acting as expected – it would be amazing if everything did," Parkinson said. "The Antarctic sea ice is one of those areas where things have not gone entirely as expected. So it's natural for scientists to ask, 'OK, this isn't what we expected, now how can we explain it?'"

I do have a certain skepticism of government and governmental agencies, but I'll take narrative ten times over from articles drawn directly from NASA or NOAA (still keeping in mind that they have a set idea that the conclusion they are trying to prove is man-made climate change) than I would interpretations of articles by journalists who are making a fine living reporting on climatological issues.

Read articles like the link posted above with an open mind and you'll get my point that it's still a young field with many things scientists still cannot explain about the phenomena. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

I also believe someone who is hired to do a specific job will do what they are paid to do given a certain set of evidence.  As an attorney, when a client pays you to defend them in a civil or criminal case, even if the evidence suggests your client may be guilty or negligent, you were still paid to get others to reach a conclusion your client was not guilty or negligent with the evidence you have on hand.  In other words, you will present the evidence in such a way to try and reach the conclusion your client wanted when they hired you.

Let's put it this way:  If you were awarded a grant which would cover your living expenses for ten years to study the eating habits of zebras, you are going to be looking at zebras not horses.  If the wording of your grant award were to prove glacial melting trends, you are going to be looking for and documenting areas where ice is retreating, not accumulating.

Horrible analogies.  Totally different worlds.

Scientists - real ones - are hired to study what is happening, whichever way it is going - open to reality.  

Real scientists are awarded grants to study glacial activity - not just looking for melting or freezing, but looking at what is really happening.  The big oil "scientists" are the ones getting grants to show that glaciers are not melting at all.  


Also, along the 'open mind' route - that's why it is global climate change, not just global warming.

[patric]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/10/global-warming-2016-confirmed-earths-hottest-year-record/556405001

[Conan71]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/10/global-warming-2016-confirmed-earths-hottest-year-record/556405001

As expected, an hysterical mic drop from USA Today without as so much as quantifying by how much it was hotter.  I suggest we stick closer to the source and not a media which likes to sensationalize it.

Here's what NASA has to say about it:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

Earth's 2016 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern recordkeeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Globally-averaged temperatures in 2016 were 1.78 degrees Fahrenheit (0.99 degrees Celsius) warmer than the mid-20th century mean. This makes 2016 the third year in a row to set a new record for global average surface temperatures.

The 2016 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2016 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data.

Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, there are uncertainties in the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences. However, even taking this into account, NASA estimates 2016 was the warmest year with greater than 95 percent certainty.

"2016 is remarkably the third record year in a row in this series," said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. "We don't expect record years every year, but the ongoing long-term warming trend is clear."

The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year – from January through September, with the exception of June – were the warmest on record for those respective months. October, November, and December of 2016 were the second warmest of those months on record – in all three cases, behind records set in 2015.

Phenomena such as El Niño or La Niña, which warm or cool the upper tropical Pacific Ocean and cause corresponding variations in global wind and weather patterns, contribute to short-term variations in global average temperature. A warming El Niño event was in effect for most of 2015 and the first third of 2016. Researchers estimate the direct impact of the natural El Niño warming in the tropical Pacific increased the annual global temperature anomaly for 2016 by 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit (0.12 degrees Celsius).  

Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced record average temperatures last year. For example, both NASA and NOAA found the 2016 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the second warmest on record. In contrast, the Arctic experienced its warmest year ever, consistent with record low sea ice found in that region for most of the year.

NASA's analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations. These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions. The result of these calculations is an estimate of the global average temperature difference from a baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different baseline period, and different methods to analyze Earth's polar regions and global temperatures.


GISS is a laboratory within the Earth Sciences Division of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University's Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.

NASA monitors Earth's vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites, as well as airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. The agency develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. NASA shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

The full 2016 surface temperature data set and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation are available at:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

The slides for the Jan. 18, news conference are available at:

https://go.nasa.gov/2016climate

For more information about NASA's Earth science programs, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/earth

-end-

Last Updated: Aug. 4, 2017

Editor: Karen Northon

[swake]

As expected, an hysterical mic drop from USA Today without as so much as quantifying by how much it was hotter.  I suggest we stick closer to the source and not a media which likes to sensationalize it.

Here's what NASA has to say about it:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally

The NASA report is very serious. I'm not sure what your issue with the USA Today story is re: the NASA report.

[Conan71]

The NASA report is very serious. I'm not sure what your issue with the USA Today story is re: the NASA report.

Did you see where USA Today quantified that the temperature has risen by about 2 degrees F since the turn of the last century?  I didn't either because it wasn't there.  Instead, they seek to sensationalize it by proclaiming it to be the "hottest on record in 800,000 years" as if it's going to implode next year.

This is my issue.  Simpletons fall prey easily to sensational headlines and stories which leave out important details.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Did you see where USA Today quantified that the temperature has risen by about 2 degrees F since the turn of the last century?  I didn't either because it wasn't there.  Instead, they seek to sensationalize it by proclaiming it to be the "hottest on record in 800,000 years" as if it's going to implode next year.

This is my issue.  Simpletons fall prey easily to sensational headlines and stories which leave out important details.

The important detail that every layman just goes sailing past while thinking there is no difference is the BIG difference in the way it is manifested this time.  For 500,000 years or so, we the planet went through a consistent, almost "planned" predictable cycle where temperature went up followed by CO2.  And then back down in exactly the same way.  Time after time.  Hundreds of millenia.

This time is exactly 180 degrees opposite that - in no physically possible way could this happen without some serious disruption or interference or outside influence/input.  You cannot change stable, repeatable physical systems without some OTHER external influence.   Like the activity of man.  CO2 is leading this cycle.  Because of human activity.  Perhaps burning coal and oil is the minority contributor, but eliminating rain forests, massively increasing the bovine population, massively increasing the human population.  All together, these things are changing the world.  It remains to be seen whether for the better or the worse.  I am betting worse, since that is always how it seems to go....

As for those who say, "How can little ole man change something as big as our atmosphere/planet..."   Stupid question from stupid people.  OR big oil vested interests.  You are right - simpletons fall prey very easily!  Just one look at the entire northern expanse of Africa should be at least a clue.  During Biblical times, the Sahara was much, much smaller.  And is growing as a direct result of overpopulation and overgrazing.

[cannon_fodder]

I  wish I could make this short, but I want to address your arguments. I truly am happy to continue answering questions, but at a certain point it wonders away from actual data and into speculation.  When that happens, there is little merit to the discussion:

1. Nothing in the rebuttal from yestrday morning contained any suggestion of evidence contrary to the consensus held for more than a generation.  Maybe its just advocacy, the language isn't strong enough, we aren't sure about the effects... these are all possibilities, but just looking at them for a second casts them aside when we are framing the actual issue.  There is overwhelming data supporting the consensus on global warming.  Someone needs to present extraordinary evidence if they want to change the theory.  That hasn't happened in this thread or anywhere else, but at this point we have stopped even discussing scientific questions. Instead we are now raising possibilities and opinions and pretending they stand on their own merit.

2. Each "doubt" that you raised previously has a readily available answer backed by hard science.  Too young - its older than atomic physics or relativity.  Consensus not reach - it was reached in the 1970s.   They aren't sure about historic temperatures - here's the science.  It's human BTUs - here's the math.   Questioning and doubt aren't bad at all, but when all those questions are answered and there is basically nothing left to support the doubt - you are left with a strongly held belief, not a debate about science.  Is there any data, fact or explanation that will change your mind?  Probably not.   Often the entire debate can be reduced to "no matter what, I still won't believe you."

3. This isn't a matter of advocacy.  I can advocate against the notion of climate change in spite of overwhelming scientific data in support of it. But the data is not an endeavor in advocacy.  It sure feels that way when the conclusions are against what one either wants or thinks they should be, but the US Military or Exxon or China don't have any reason to advocate in favor of global warming, yet they accept the scientific data.  For that matter, the National Academy of Science had no stake in accepting or denying the premise when it did so 30+ years ago.  The status quo in the 1930s is that it was an unproven theory, the burden was on those who believed the premise to prove it.  Now that the data has accomplished that goal and it has a generation of additional research in support of it - there is a huge burden on anyone wishing to overturn the fact (that's how science works).  If someone wants to set out to prove smoking doesn't cause cancer - you have a huge burden to do so. 

And no one is presenting a solid case against climate change.  There are "questions" and conspiracy theories, but an examination of any of them fail to hold up.

4. Science isn't an absolute language. Another common argument is that scientists use words like "may" and "probably" or "evidence suggests."  A scientists will almost never say "that cannot happen,"  even if it is true that no evidence supports it and there is no current theory that would allow it.  The language of science is not usually the same as everyday speech, while a senator might hold a snowball and say "the earth is not getting warming," a scientist probably rebuts with "our best evidence suggests the earth is, in fact, warming." But often the problem is more basic than that, a desire by science to gain a better understanding is somehow held out as proof that they are all wrong.

Lets look at the language you linked to that is causing you doubts: It all discusses trying to improve what the effects of climate change will be.  Nothing in that article raises evidence to suggest that man made CO2 is causing the average global temperature to rise.  Rather, the entire article discusses scientific endeavors to try and model what the effects of the accepted fact of global warming will be .  But somehow the take away is - "See, they aren't sure about global warming!"  (incidentally, the term "Climate Change" was coined to try to bypass this very conversation.  "The earth isn't warming, it got colder in X!"  It is entirely anticipated that the warming will change climates differently [the current area of study], but that change is caused by an overall increase in temperature).  The fact is considered so well established that nearly everyone has moved on to the next questions:  what will the local effects be and what can we do?

5. A mass market nespaper didn't adaquately describe a scientific finding?  Say it ain't so!  Yet a page ago you were arguing that the media in the past was blathering about global cooling - and you used that as evidence that the science of global warming was unsettled.  By that logic, the article by USA Today must be evidence that the science is well settled - no?  Of course not.  Then again, it wasn't trynig to quantify the overall effects,

The mass media does an OK job of hitting the headlines.  But John Q Public is basically illiterate when it comes to science.  You previously pointed to the IPCC as a late-comer to the climate change concensus - if you want a scientific assessment lets start there.  Here is the 5th Assessment of the IPCC - finding 0.85 C (1.53F) temperature rise from 1880 to 2012.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

The USA article describes NASAs newest data, which shows an even larger rise. They again use scientific language to describe it, which you bolded presumably to highlight the nature of the language. So I will say it again, scientists generally don't say things like "oh sh!t, it is getting hotter faster than we thought!"  And again, someone is trying to draw the best conclusion from available data, and somehow that fuels the idea that they don't know what they are doing?  Note that they provide all of the data and the methodology, anyone is free to go look at the data and tell them why they are wrong. That isn't happening for a reason.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally


Which brings us back full circle, there is overwhelming evidence in support of CO2 produced by humans causing the planet to get warmer.  You don't have to like it or "believe" in it, but it is a scientific fact.  I'm happy to spend time answering questions, pointing out data, and trying to explain things.  It helps me learn too.  But for the vast majority of people who refuse to admit the existence of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of global warming, it doesn't matter at all. No fact, data, or explanation is going to change the opion.  Which means we aren't really discussing science.

[BKDotCom]

^ Incredibly well said

[rebound]

And no one is presenting a solid case against climate change.  There are "questions" and conspiracy theories, but an examination of any of them fail to hold up.

I was listening to Steele and Ungar on POTUS radio ealier this week, and they had a scientist on discussing this issue.  For those not familiar,  (Michael) Steele is the ex GOP party head, and (Rick) Ungar is a noted liberal-ish columnist.  It's a great show where you can hear both sides of an issue discussed with very little of the hyperbole that often surrounds political topics.

The main issue for the scientist, who was a proponent of Climate Change, is/was "where are the papers?"   I yield to him on this as I did not go check, but he said that there have been no (zero) papers formally submitted for peer review that argue against climate change, or even against human-caused climate change.   There are numerous peer-reviewed papers supporting this argument, but none against it.  All the "anti" climate change arguments have been made outside this tested process.   

His suggestion was that if a valid argument can be scientifically made against climate change, and the position is to be taken seriously, it would have been (and still should be) submitted for public peer review.   Otherwise it's just propaganda, not actual science.

[cannon_fodder]

His suggestion was that if a valid argument can be scientifically made against climate change, and the position is to be taken seriously, it would have been (and still should be) submitted for public peer review. 

A scientist that is able to come up with significant flaw in an established scientific principle gains world renown. Its hard to do and it is a long road, but its done all the time.  And each time it is done, we gain knowledge and end up better off.  What you will hear from science deniers on any established topic when you say there are no peer reviewed papers to the contrary is that it is a conspiracy.  No flat earth papers get published, no anti-vax papers get published, no big-foot papers get published...because the establishment won't let them.

Ignoring the fact that a journal that publishes a paper that casts strong doubt on an established theory gains notoriety, not too mention the author.  All you need to do to see what I mean is review the decades of papers in favor and against climate change to see the process at work.  Or look up the papers that almost gleefully destroy Einstein's theory of a static universe (after Einstein himself destroyed the existing understanding of relativity, the planet vulcan, and several other theories).  Attacking  scientific dogma earns great prizes, but you have to bring your A game.

When that happens concerning climate change, I will change my tune happily. God willing we see that reflective increases with temperature or some other stabilizing force presents itself. But no one is firing that caliber of ammunition.  At the moment, saying climate change is bogus is like saying you're sure the University of Tulsa is going to win the BCS Championship because they are the best (note the total lack of supporting data for my pipe dream).  That doesn't mean it can't happen, but if it does... I was right due to blind luck, not knowledge.

[swake]

I was listening to Steele and Ungar on POTUS radio ealier this week, and they had a scientist on discussing this issue.  For those not familiar,  (Michael) Steele is the ex GOP party head, and (Rick) Ungar is a noted liberal-ish columnist.  It's a great show where you can hear both sides of an issue discussed with very little of the hyperbole that often surrounds political topics.

The main issue for the scientist, who was a proponent of Climate Change, is/was "where are the papers?"   I yield to him on this as I did not go check, but he said that there have been no (zero) papers formally submitted for peer review that argue against climate change, or even against human-caused climate change.   There are numerous peer-reviewed papers supporting this argument, but none against it.  All the "anti" climate change arguments have been made outside this tested process.   

His suggestion was that if a valid argument can be scientifically made against climate change, and the position is to be taken seriously, it would have been (and still should be) submitted for public peer review.   Otherwise it's just propaganda, not actual science.

That's an excellent point.

[erfalf]

That's an excellent point.

I've been keeping away, but this is low hanging fruit.

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/10/PeerReview.pdf

Peer Review does not equal correct. Basically, other experts make sure nothing completely ridiculous gets published. Now-a-days completely ridiculous = does not believe in AGW. As the article I posted notes, peer review is an excellent gate keeper. It has also had the effect of making discourse less open than it used to be and greatly biased against innovative work. Peer review, is a relatively new phenomenon as we know it today (a little over 40 or 50 years has it been widely used). And really there is no reliable study that goes to confirm the benefit of peer review.

With AGW, it is used as a stick to beat people over the head and say believe me, "it's peer reviewed".

*George Zweig's paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.

*Berson and Yalow's work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

*Krebs' work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.

*Wiesner's paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.

At best peer review an imperfect filter for validity and quality. At worst it has a chilling effect on true scientific breakthroughs.

And generally speaking, saying there are no peer review papers that are "anti-global warming" I think is a bit of play on words. There are tons of papers that attribute other factors much more heavily than human input to changes in global climate. I agree though, I doubt there are going to be any papers saying there is no change to the climate, ever. But those were two political hacks making that point, and being honest and genuine isn't exactly in there DNA.

[rebound]

I've been keeping away, but this is low hanging fruit.
Peer Review does not equal correct.

The argument is not regarding "correct".  It is regarding doing something in an established, scientific way so as to allow open discourse to support or refute the argument.  It is supposed to be a gate keeper.   But, there are many gates.   As you note below, even if it is initially rejected, a good idea will eventually find foothold and get reviewed.   

At best peer review an imperfect filter for validity and quality. At worst it has a chilling effect on true scientific breakthroughs.

This argument is similar to the argument against "mainstream media", and related to the proliferation of alternate news (such as it may be...) sources.  While it is fair to say that limiting discourse is a possible issue, the converse of allowing unsubstantiated arguments to enter the mainstream discussion without vetting is much more detrimental to real scientific progress.

But those were two political hacks making that point, and being honest and genuine isn't exactly in there DNA.

Are you talking about Steele and Ungar?  I agree with you that their role is to be political hacks, but I do think they are genuine in their arguing of their political positions. (and, that's their job on the show)  But, they weren't the ones making this argument.  The scientist was.   Holding aside the "peer reviewed" aspect of this,  his point was that there have been no formal papers submitted with formal, scientific, positions on alternate theories.  At least none that have survived scrutiny.

Also, one last point regarding access and the ability to publish these alternate papers.   There is a TON of money being made available by industry to anyone who can counter some of these warming claims.  So I do not accept that naysayers are restricted from publication.

[Conan71]

I  wish I could make this short, but I want to address your arguments. I truly am happy to continue answering questions, but at a certain point it wonders away from actual data and into speculation.  When that happens, there is little merit to the discussion:

1. Nothing in the rebuttal from yestrday morning contained any suggestion of evidence contrary to the consensus held for more than a generation.  Maybe its just advocacy, the language isn't strong enough, we aren't sure about the effects... these are all possibilities, but just looking at them for a second casts them aside when we are framing the actual issue.  There is overwhelming data supporting the consensus on global warming.  Someone needs to present extraordinary evidence if they want to change the theory.  That hasn't happened in this thread or anywhere else, but at this point we have stopped even discussing scientific questions. Instead we are now raising possibilities and opinions and pretending they stand on their own merit.

2. Each "doubt" that you raised previously has a readily available answer backed by hard science.  Too young - its older than atomic physics or relativity.  Consensus not reach - it was reached in the 1970s.   They aren't sure about historic temperatures - here's the science.  It's human BTUs - here's the math.   Questioning and doubt aren't bad at all, but when all those questions are answered and there is basically nothing left to support the doubt - you are left with a strongly held belief, not a debate about science.  Is there any data, fact or explanation that will change your mind?  Probably not.   Often the entire debate can be reduced to "no matter what, I still won't believe you."

3. This isn't a matter of advocacy.  I can advocate against the notion of climate change in spite of overwhelming scientific data in support of it. But the data is not an endeavor in advocacy.  It sure feels that way when the conclusions are against what one either wants or thinks they should be, but the US Military or Exxon or China don't have any reason to advocate in favor of global warming, yet they accept the scientific data.  For that matter, the National Academy of Science had no stake in accepting or denying the premise when it did so 30+ years ago.  The status quo in the 1930s is that it was an unproven theory, the burden was on those who believed the premise to prove it.  Now that the data has accomplished that goal and it has a generation of additional research in support of it - there is a huge burden on anyone wishing to overturn the fact (that's how science works).  If someone wants to set out to prove smoking doesn't cause cancer - you have a huge burden to do so. 

And no one is presenting a solid case against climate change.  There are "questions" and conspiracy theories, but an examination of any of them fail to hold up.

4. Science isn't an absolute language. Another common argument is that scientists use words like "may" and "probably" or "evidence suggests."  A scientists will almost never say "that cannot happen,"  even if it is true that no evidence supports it and there is no current theory that would allow it.  The language of science is not usually the same as everyday speech, while a senator might hold a snowball and say "the earth is not getting warming," a scientist probably rebuts with "our best evidence suggests the earth is, in fact, warming." But often the problem is more basic than that, a desire by science to gain a better understanding is somehow held out as proof that they are all wrong.

Lets look at the language you linked to that is causing you doubts: It all discusses trying to improve what the effects of climate change will be.  Nothing in that article raises evidence to suggest that man made CO2 is causing the average global temperature to rise.  Rather, the entire article discusses scientific endeavors to try and model what the effects of the accepted fact of global warming will be .  But somehow the take away is - "See, they aren't sure about global warming!"  (incidentally, the term "Climate Change" was coined to try to bypass this very conversation.  "The earth isn't warming, it got colder in X!"  It is entirely anticipated that the warming will change climates differently [the current area of study], but that change is caused by an overall increase in temperature).  The fact is considered so well established that nearly everyone has moved on to the next questions:  what will the local effects be and what can we do?

5. A mass market nespaper didn't adaquately describe a scientific finding?  Say it ain't so!  Yet a page ago you were arguing that the media in the past was blathering about global cooling - and you used that as evidence that the science of global warming was unsettled.  By that logic, the article by USA Today must be evidence that the science is well settled - no?  Of course not.  Then again, it wasn't trynig to quantify the overall effects,

The mass media does an OK job of hitting the headlines.  But John Q Public is basically illiterate when it comes to science.  You previously pointed to the IPCC as a late-comer to the climate change concensus - if you want a scientific assessment lets start there.  Here is the 5th Assessment of the IPCC - finding 0.85 C (1.53F) temperature rise from 1880 to 2012.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

The USA article describes NASAs newest data, which shows an even larger rise. They again use scientific language to describe it, which you bolded presumably to highlight the nature of the language. So I will say it again, scientists generally don't say things like "oh sh!t, it is getting hotter faster than we thought!"  And again, someone is trying to draw the best conclusion from available data, and somehow that fuels the idea that they don't know what they are doing?  Note that they provide all of the data and the methodology, anyone is free to go look at the data and tell them why they are wrong. That isn't happening for a reason.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally


Which brings us back full circle, there is overwhelming evidence in support of CO2 produced by humans causing the planet to get warmer.  You don't have to like it or "believe" in it, but it is a scientific fact.  I'm happy to spend time answering questions, pointing out data, and trying to explain things.  It helps me learn too.  But for the vast majority of people who refuse to admit the existence of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of global warming, it doesn't matter at all. No fact, data, or explanation is going to change the opion.  Which means we aren't really discussing science.

You go to an awful lot of trouble to reply to: "The science isn't settled". 

It's a simple point, CF:  The mechanism by which it is happening is not "settled".  Too many laymen rely on this simple word to describe something which is far from settled as to the mechanism of the warming.  As I said, I do accept to an extent that warming is a result of human activity as well as normal climatological shifts which seems to be pretty much inline with what scientists seem to agree upon, right?  Reading NASA's 2016 report on the state of the climate, warming was not entirely a function of human activity due to a lingering El Nino condition for the first third of the year after nearly a full year of it in 2015. 

There's room for skepticism.  What if we go into a ten year cooling cycle while CO2 emissions remain static?  What would the explanation be?  Remember, at one point there was a "pause" between 1998 and 2013, which it was later claimed didn't happen even though it is safe to assume that CO2 emissions were increasing by the year as other nations continued to industrialize (China anyone?).  Was that a shifting goal post or another sign of a science which is not really settled?