Catholicism and Climate Change

[JasonSB]

Here’s another Outlandish claim

Prove that Global Temperatures USED - CAN be relied upon

skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

Can you prove such a thing AS A GLOBAL Temperature in the first place?

I don’t have to. What we’re interested in are changes in the temperature. If I find that the temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.2C/decade on average at thousands of sites around the world then the global temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.2C/decade. It makes no difference what the individual temperatures are, only how they’re changing. That’s why they always talk about the temperature anomaly.

I believe, they are discussing the G & T papers?

No, Pat Michaels was telling the “skeptics” conference not to claim that global warming stopped in 1998 because as soon as warming resumed they’d lose all credibility. He said something to the effect “It’s warming, we have something to do with it, get over it”.

Hey, It wasn’t anti-AGWers who made the claims of Amazongate - Himalayangate - PolarbearGate - HurricaneGate etc etc etc

Wasn’t “Amazongate” a question of the right science being put into the report but the wrong citation being used?

Himalayangate was an error, yes, but not in WG1, the part that provides the scientific evidence for AGW.

My understanding of polar bears is that the current best science on the issue suggests they will suffer large declines. If you have updates on that, feel free to share.

HurricaneGate – Enlighten me.

If you think any of the above challenges AGW then you’d better hurry up and tell the birds and trees and frogs and flowers and glaciers and Arctic ice cap to stop fooling around.

Hey look, I can prove the IPCC was wrong, too – why didn’t you use this one?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif

ADMIT IT - If Skeptics look bad - AGW stink with false claims

You really need to start being more “skeptical”.

PS save your UTUBES - I’m not allowed to D/L them - besides, they must leave a Large Carbon Footprint - Just think what we could reduce if people just stopped D/Ling them

Others may benefit.

 

[JasonSB]

Oh Oh…Observational Temperatures Prove Lake Michigan is Boiling.

skepticalscience.com/Great-Lakes-satellite-temperature.htm

 

[kimmielittle]

Wow, you’re really confused by that factor of two, aren’t you?

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium

.

This only works in Climate Models - Climate models that hold CO2 at a constant And Water Vapor at a Constant - The Models assume Humidity is holding at a constant

There is NO physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles. This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more - The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it COMPLETLY changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapor is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

 

[kimmielittle]

skepticalscience.com/Great-Lakes-satellite-temperature.htm

You seem, unable to grasp the real importance. Mistakes are made, and until caught, published as fact. It is the OBLIGATION of Government Sponsored Identities to identify these mistakes. Not laypeople to have to point them out. The Question now is, If not caught would it have remained?

 

[Ender]

OK, the fact that you’re asking me about an even shorter period of time means you’ve completely missed the point of that video.

The video was easy to understand. I understood the point it tried to make; I disagree with its facts as well as its conclusion. Or I should say, NOAA disagrees with them.

Tamino had a really good post on how long was required to filter out the noise and detect the underlying climate signal but it’s gone missing. His conclusion was that you really need at least 20 years of data to be sure, even 15 years wasn’t quite enough.

And I of course wouldn’t know … but NOAA appears to have weighed in on that point as well, at least as far as Roger Pielke understands it. *“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions – 15 years of no warming.” *

Wouldn’t you expect them to be different? Different time periods, and one has had ENSO removed and one has not. Your question is a false dilemma.

The time periods are different but that doesn’t account for the difference in the results they reported. First, ENSO should have been removed from Jones’ data since cyclical events have no bearing on whether global warming is occurring. This would have cut his supposed trend by about half and is just another example of disingenuousness: how can one justify including in a trend calculation something that by definition cannot be part of a trend? Second, even without the ENSO effect it isn’t at all clear that his “trend” exists given that for the last two thirds of the period in question the trend has been exactly zero.

Now I did try to check the NOAA report to see what it says but I couldn’t find any reference to what you said anywhere. Could you give me a page number?

Pp 23-24.

That doesn’t make any sense. The theory predicts loss of ice extent in the northern hemisphere, and there is a loss of sea ice extent in the northern hemisphere. Therefore it is worth reporting that.

Perhaps so, but that wasn’t what you said. You asked simply if * accepted it as true that there was decreasing sea ice. Since - globally - sea ice is not decreasing it seemed pretty straightforward to say, no, I don’t accept it as true.

But in what way does it make sense to add the two together? There’s nothing in the theory that says the total

is in any way relevant.You asked about sea ice and since we’re discussing global warming it seemed at least casually relevant that we talk about sea ice globally. If you had asked whether I accepted that Arctic sea ice was diminishing you would have gotten a different response.

Ender*

 

[kimmielittle]

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Seriously, if this confuses you, you really should think twice before disparaging others because you think their equations are wrong.

Seriously, If you can’t understand AGW models ignore ALL variables Holding them at a constant ] to promote the Hypotheses of AGW.

The assumption, that relative humidity is constant when CO2 concentrations increase, is completely absurd. WE know it’s not.

There are not separate energy balance equations for different greenhouse gases.

There is not one set for water vapor, and a different set for CO2; there is one set of energy balance equations for the total atmosphere including all greenhouse gases. So it makes no sense to assign an arbitrary rule for one of the greenhouse gases.

 

[kimmielittle]

Correcting obvious errors –

Wow, you’re really confused by that factor of two, aren’t you?

And the radiation going in the direction of space – any direction, not necessarily straight up – will be R/2.

R/2 (going towards the ground at any angle) + R/2 (going towards space at any angle) = R

So far so good.

The equations now become:

Surface: S + R/2 = G

Incoming:
S = radiation absorbed from the sun
R/2 = radiation going towards the ground from the greenhouse gas layer

Outgoing:
G = radiation leaving the ground

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Atmosphere: lambda x G = R

Incoming:
lambda x G = portion of the radiation leaving the ground that’s absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer. ((1 - lambda) x G – what’s left over – will slip straight through.) In other words, lambda is just the proportion of the radiation emitted by the ground that’s absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer. It must equal R because that’s what we defined R to be above – the total amount of radiation absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer, which is also the total amount of radiation emitted by the greenhouse gas layer.

Outgoing:
R (Yay!)

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Planet (top of atmosphere): S = R/2 + (1 - lambda) x G

Incoming:
S (from the Sun)

Outgoing:
R/2 = radiation going towards space from the greenhouse gas layer (i.e. the other half of R)
(1 - lambda) x G = portion of the radiation leaving the ground that wasn’t absorbed by the greenhouse gas layer.

Incoming must be equal to Outgoing because we’re at equilibrium.

Now substitute the second equation into the third equation:

S = R/2 + (1 - lambda) x G
= lambda x G / 2 + (1 - lambda) x G
= lambda x G / 2 + G - lambda x G
= (1 - lambda/2) x G

Re-arrange for G:

G = S / (1 - lambda/2)

AHHhhhhhhhhh At what value is lambda figured at?
Ludwig Boltzmann’s law, lambda’s true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. A century old law ].

Now in In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, ** doubling lambda ** to 0.5C per watt.

Then A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C -

Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN’s scientific assessment working group until recently, put lambda at 0.8C

**That’s 3C for a 3.7-watt DOUBLING of airborne CO2. Most of the UN’s computer models have used 1C. **

And Stern implies 1.9C.

The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict.

On the UN’s figures:
The entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts.
Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation.

But using Stern’s 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C.

Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go?

UK’s Hadley Center had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modeled output by three to “predict” 20th-century temperature correctly.

Why does every other scientific field useing Ludwig Boltzmann’s law - Use lambda’s true value at just 0.22-0.3C per watt. BUT Climate Models don’t?

 

[Calliso]

total

is in any way relevant. The two poles are different and separated by as much as they can be and still be on the same planet – hence the phrase “poles apart”!

Exactly and correct me if I am wrong but other then distance there is also other differences. For instance the northpole is basically seaice surrounded by a bunch of land. And the southpole is on the continent of Antartica which is basically land surrounded by ocean. So just from that one should expect that the poles would be different. And just adding together the sea ice loss isn;t the right thing to do. Also land ice on Antartica IS melting. skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm and that also talks about the sea ice thing as well.

Speaking of sea ice it isn;t just area of extent that is important but what is perhaps more important is volume. skepticalscience.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Why-Do-Skeptics-Think-in-Only-Two-Dimensions.html And another one more in detail that was written in reponse to the argument that sea ice is increasing. skepticalscience.com/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Part-1-Is-Arctic-Sea-Ice-recovering.html

 

[kimmielittle]

skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

Are you suggesting errors haven’t been made? Nonsense. Just look at the errors GISS had to fix lately. AND Don’t try to use the lame excuse. that most try - “Well those only applied to USA - North America Temperatures”

You see USA - North America Temperatures are USED as EVIDENCE of AGW.

It’s the same argument used to dismiss MWP " It was local - in the Northern Hemisphere"…Well, the SAME LAND MASS was USED to promote AGW - I didn’t see AGW’ers Omitting that SAME LAND MASS

I don’t have to.

Actually, I think AGW’ers DO have to - That is why it’s called Global Warming - is it not? If you can’t prove a Global Temperature…

What we’re interested in are changes in the temperature. If I find that the temperature is increasing at a rate of 0.2C/decade on ** average**

You mean, a guesstimate?

at thousands of sites around the world

NOT if sites are ignored AND many have been ] - That is “Cherry-Picking” to meet an agenda.

It makes no difference what the individual temperatures are,

Surely you don’t believe this falsehood ? IF they are warm enough to SUPPORT AGW THEY ARE ADDED. If an anomaly happens …you can almost bet - it’s counted / valued as “noise”

IMHO This is one of the Biggest problems of modeling - selective subjective (name removed by moderator)ut. AND you can’t say it doesn’t happen

Just look how “lambda” figures are dickered with subjectively

 

[kimmielittle]

But in what way does it make sense to add the two together? There’s nothing in the theory that says the total is in any way relevant. The two poles are different and separated by as much as they can be and still be on the same planet – hence the phrase “poles apart”!

:yawn::yawn: Ahhhhh But we aren’t being sold Hemispheric Global Change - Now are we? BY Your logic, Australia and New Zealand Tempertures should not be used in the totals of Global Warming. :tsktsk::tsktsk:

To ignore one part of the planet - IS “Cherry - Picking” No matter what skepticalscience thinks.

 

[kimmielittle]

Soooo ???

WARMING IS different than AGW.

Wasn’t “Amazongate” a question of the right science

No Sir, I’m not dumb enough to try to link such -
If you think any of the above proves AGW and CO2 as the climate driver…Wellll

BUT IPCC seems to like to They seem to like to confuse the public in comparing apples to oranges

 

[JasonSB]

The video was easy to understand. I understood the point it tried to make; I disagree with its facts as well as its conclusion. Or I should say, NOAA disagrees with them.

The fact that you think that proves you didn’t understand. There is no disagreement between that video and NOAA.

Feel free to explain exactly what facts you disagree with and what you think is wrong with the conclusion.

And I of course wouldn’t know … but NOAA appears to have weighed in on that point as well, at least as far as Roger Pielke understands it. *“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions – 15 years of no warming.” *

Ah, see, this is why I wanted to be able to see the original material and find out what they actually said in context:

We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model (Gordon et al. 2000), which is typical of those used in the recent IPCC report (AR4; Solomon et al. 2007).

(Emphasis mine.)

OK, so the question is: Is the apparent lack of warming in the ENSO-adjusted data something unusual? Does it prove the climate models are wrong? To find out, they did a series of runs with one model typical of those used in the IPCC report. (The RealClimate link I provided used all of the models used in AR4, and found one of the actual model runs used for the AR4 showed a negative trend for 20 years in the midst of a 0.2C/decade warming trend.)

ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations. Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.

(Emphasis mine.)

Now let’s actually think about the logic here. First, they found that the actual data lies within the 90% range of the models. So the actual data is consistent with the models. (So much so that “Near-zero and even negative trends” – which are what has provoked this question – “are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations”.)

So, what we’ve actually seen is to be expected. The next question is: What would be unexpected? What would we need to see before we could say the actual data is inconsistent with the models? Using one model they concluded that you would need at least 15 years with no trend.

Have we got 15 years of no trend? No. We had 10 years of no trend, which they found is a common occurance in the climate model.

If we had 15 years of no trend, adjusting for ENSO, then we could say “Hmm… The actual data is “inconsistent” with this particular climate model.” But if that doesn’t actually happen then you can’t complain that the model is wrong – and that was just one of them.

(I put “inconsistent” in quotes because I want to highlight that they mean “at 95% confidence” – that even at 15 years, with just that one climate model, a 15 year zero trend could only be ruled out at the 95% confidence level. What does that mean? It means that one time in 20 it might still happen! That’s what 95% confidence means. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen. In fact, I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen at least once in the next century.)

And here’s the key – NOAA wasn’t saying that there’s a problem because the ENSO-adjusted trend is 0.0 for a decade, they were saying this is consistent with the models! If you get another five years of zero trend, then you might have something to say, but in the meantime there’s nothing to be surprised about because you get zero (and negative) trends all the time. In fact, using other models used by the IPCC, you can get 20 years of cooling due to the natural variability of the climate system.

Now I’m sorry that this means that it’s actually quite hard to falsify models in a short period of time, but there’s nothing we can do about that – it’s the nature of the problem.

 

[JasonSB]

The time periods are different but that doesn’t account for the difference in the results they reported.

Actually, since weather goes up and down all the time, time periods do account for a difference, especially when they’re too short. That’s the take-home message of both that video and the NOAA report.

But more importantly, NOAA were trying to remove the effect of ENSO. Jones was asked about his global temperature record. If he tried to change the subject and mention something about ENSO corrections you can guarantee that “skeptics” would have been all over him for trying to avoid answering the question.

First, ENSO should have been removed from Jones’ data since cyclical events have no bearing on whether global warming is occurring.

Actually, Jones published a very interesting paper on what the temperature trend looks like if you remove known forcings with reasonable physical parameterisations, and, sure enough, when you remove extraneous factors you make the signal:noise ratio of the climate stronger and easier to see that yes, it has in fact kept climbing steadily.

But that requires physical modelling and parameter estimation, which is like a red flag to a bull to certain people.

But the bottom line is that HadCRUT is supposed to be reporting global temperature anomaly and Jones was asked about his global temperature anomaly. It would have been inappropriate for him to start talking about ENSO, which actually makes the trend appear more clearly:



Note how it knocks off the unusually high peak of 1998? And, if you filter out the effect of Mt Pinotubo in 1991, the line becomes even more straight.

If people don’t trust scientists to account for these other effects, then the only way to filter out their impact is to take longer time periods, because measurements show that ENSO, volcanoes, and the sun have had no long-term trend in the recent past, you can eliminate their effect if you average over a long enough period of time.

This would have cut his supposed trend by about half and is just another example of disingenuousness: how can one justify including in a trend calculation something that by definition cannot be part of a trend? Second, even without the ENSO effect it isn’t at all clear that his “trend” exists given that for the last two thirds of the period in question the trend has been exactly zero.

I’m sorry, but I think you completely misunderstand the situation.

Firstly, you can’t just “correct for ENSO”. You have to use a physically-plausible parameter estimation technique to come up with a reasonable ENSO correction. (You can just use a statistical technique like Tamino did but then people will complain “it’s just statistics”.) Given that people already don’t trust scientists to homongenise thermometer readings, do you really think they’ll be happy if they “correct” for ENSO, etc., before releasing the “corrected” temperatures onto the public?

(The huge irony of all this, of course, is that if you do apply those corrections then the global warming signal is stronger! Then everyone will say the global warming trend is because of bogus corrections for ENSO!)

Secondly, HadCRUT is a temperature record. If other researchers want to experiment with different ways to try and filter out the effect of ENSO, they can. This is a better scenario because different people mgiht have different ideas about the best way to do it, and everyone can see what’s going on. This is actually an active area of research.

It is certainly not “disingeneous” to publish a temperature anomaly record that is, in fact, exactly that – a temperature anomaly record.

And, thirdly, you’re working off a false premise – that Jones’ “15 year trend” would be “cut in half” if ENSO-correction was applied, based on the effect of the 10 year trend 1999-2008. I think you’ll find that correcting for ENSO over the 15 year time period actually makes the trend more certain, not less. Look very carefully at the graph I posted above and see what happened in the years 1995-1999 when ENSO-correction is applied. What do you think the slope of the trend 1995-2008 will be compared to 1999-2008 using the ENSO-corrected data?

Pp 23-24.

Thanks. You sent me down completely the wrong path because you said “2009 annual State of the Climate report” when in fact it is their 2008 report. So the dates are even more wrong than you thought.

 

[JasonSB]

Perhaps so, but that wasn’t what you said. You asked simply if I accepted it as true that there was decreasing sea ice. Since - globally - sea ice is not decreasing it seemed pretty straightforward to say, no, I don’t accept it as true.

But I never said decreasing sea ice globally. That was your interpretation, which I immediately corrected. Now who’s being disingenuous?

You asked about sea ice and since we’re discussing global warming it seemed at least casually relevant that we talk about sea ice globally.

Why? AGW doesn’t make predictions about the global total.

I could have said “Increased precipitation” and “Increased droughts”, both of which are also predictions of AGW – and yet seemingly in direct contradition to each other. How can this be? Because location matters.

So just because I said “Decreasing sea ice” does not mean you can therefore assume we must have “decreasing sea ice globally” because we’re talking about global warming. Global warming does not have to have the same effect on the entire globe just because the warming is global.

If you had asked whether I accepted that Arctic sea ice was diminishing you would have gotten a different response.

Well, thank you for taking up so much of my time on that matter, then, especially when I correctly pointed out that AGW predicts different outcomes for the two poles as soon as you brought it up.

 

[JasonSB]

.

This only works in Climate Models - Climate models that hold CO2 at a constant And Water Vapor at a Constant - The Models assume Humidity is holding at a constant

Sigh…

kimmielittle, this is the simplest possible physical model that can illustrate why the greenhouse effect exists and how it works.

It is not meant to represent earth’s reality.

It doensn’t mention CO2, or water vapour, or humidity, or any feedbacks at all – it’s a general description of the effect that is designed to help people wrap their heads around the concept.

Therefore you cannot infer anything about real climate models from this simple model, any more than you can infer anything about quantum theory from a description of an atom as being like a big ball surrounded by little balls orbiting it. Here’s a hint – the real world is not in equilibrium. If it were, it wouldn’t be getting warmer!

If you really want to be informed, and actually be able to know what you are talking about, the information is available. You can freely download actual, working climate models and play with them to your heart’s content. You can examine their source code and see how they work. You can read the papers that were published describing the theory behind their operation. You can do all of this.

Or, you can continue to make claims that are simply false and allow others to form opinions on how much weight to give yours.

Here’s a hint – real models don’t hold humidity constant.

There is NO physics in support of this assumption, and no way to calculate its value from first principles.

I find it odd how someone with such little understanding of the physics can be so sure what physics there is.

This assumption means that if temperatures increase for any reason, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. But water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, so the GHE becomes stronger and temperatures increase more - The current theory does not determine this - it is only an assumption. If this assumption is only slightly wrong, it COMPLETLY changes the expected response of increasing CO2 because water vapor is such a dominant greenhouse gas.

Let’s ignore the fact that your claim about the assumption is actually not true because I think we may have accidentally made a breakthrough.

Your comments above imply that you accept the greenhouse effect, you accept the concept of feedback, and you merely dispute whether water vapour is a positive or negative feedback.

Feel free to now prove that water vapour is a negative feedback. Because without it being a negative feedback, we already have a reason to expect a warming trend, it’s just a question of how much. As the 1979 Charney report said, “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.” Have you found a reason to believe that climate changes will not result or, if they do, that those changes will be negligible?

The point being, of course, that uncertainty doesn’t work in your favour. If we’ve already established the greenhouse effect is real and we’re enhancing it, we now need reasons to believe it won’t be a problem.

 

[JasonSB]

You seem, unable to grasp the real importance. Mistakes are made, and until caught, published as fact. It is the OBLIGATION of Government Sponsored Identities to identify these mistakes. Not laypeople to have to point them out. The Question now is, If not caught would it have remained?

No, the real question is, if nobody noticed would it have mattered?

And, of course, the answer is “No”.

I think it’s safe to say that if any of the data actually used for reconstructing global temperature anomalies had a similar error that went unnoticed, it would be very quickly noticed and corrected. There are a lot of “skeptics” who pay very careful attention to this.

 

[JasonSB]

AHHhhhhhhhhh At what value is lambda figured at?
Ludwig Boltzmann’s law, lambda’s true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. A century old law ].

Oh, this is going to be good.

Show me where Boltzmann computed the value for what Gavin called lambda in the model I showed.

Now in In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, ** doubling lambda ** to 0.5C per watt.

Funny how I can find papers from thirty years earlier, before AGW was mainstream, actually measuring it.

Oh, that’s right, you actually thought it was a law, not a measured quantity. Sorry. Do go on. I am beside myself with anticipation.

 

[JasonSB]

Are you suggesting errors haven’t been made? Nonsense. Just look at the errors GISS had to fix lately.

Oh, please enlighten us. Do show us the before and after graphs while you’re at it so we can see how correcting the errors demolish AGW.

Perhaps you could look for more errors and see the nefarious techniques they use to fake that long, upward trend. After all, the source code and data are freely available and have been for years.

AND Don’t try to use the lame excuse. that most try - “Well those only applied to USA - North America Temperatures”

The error only applied to North American temperature data. Please show just how big an impact correcting the error had on the global temperature reconstruction.

You see USA - North America Temperatures are USED as EVIDENCE of AGW.

The whole world is, including North America and North American temperatures.

It’s the same argument used to dismiss MWP " It was local - in the Northern Hemisphere"…Well, the SAME LAND MASS was USED to promote AGW - I didn’t see AGW’ers Omitting that SAME LAND MASS

Evidence?

Actually, I think AGW’ers DO have to - That is why it’s called Global Warming - is it not? If you can’t prove a Global Temperature…

It’s calling global warming – a global change in temperature. It’s not that complicated, is it?

You mean, a guesstimate?

That was a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the point. No wonder you get so confused and think that toy models of the greenhouse effect allow you to make conclusions about climate models.

NOT if sites are ignored AND many have been ] - That is “Cherry-Picking” to meet an agenda.

Sites have not been “ignored”. Nor has there been any “cherry picking”. The sites that “dropped off” in 1991 are still out there, it’s just that they need their data compiled so they can be used, just like happened in 1991. I already provided you a link showing how global warming is still real when thousands of extra stations are used.

The idea that dropping those stations was somehow connected to an attempt to artificially enhance the warming trend has been thoroughly debunked: tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/global-update/, clearclimatecode.org/the-1990s-station-dropout-does-not-have-a-warming-effect/, residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/03/ghcn-processor-10.html

What if we attempt to reconstruct the global temperature anomaly with just the 61 rural stations in the record that have at least 90 years of data and kept reporting until 2010?

That would be something, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it be amazing if you could actually recreate the reported global warming trend with just these 61 well-distributed rural stations?



Enjoy: moyhu.blogspot.com/2010/05/just-60-stations.html

There’s even been a suggestion that a warming bias was accomplished by selectively removing “cooler” stations (demonstrating a fundemental misunderstanding of the concept of an anomaly in the process): rhinohide.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/ghcn-high-alt-high-lat-rural/

These are all things that anybody can do to satisfy themselves that the scientists aren’t up to no good.

Or, they can just sit on their backsides and cast aspersions with no effort to support their claims.

Surely you don’t believe this falsehood ? IF they are warm enough to SUPPORT AGW THEY ARE ADDED. If an anomaly happens …you can almost bet - it’s counted / valued as “noise”

Prove it. You’ve made more claims than I can be bothered counting and provided absolutely zero evidence for any of them.

IMHO This is one of the Biggest problems of modeling - selective subjective (name removed by moderator)ut. AND you can’t say it doesn’t happen

Just look how “lambda” figures are dickered with subjectively

IMHO one of the biggest problems is the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[JasonSB]

:yawn::yawn: Ahhhhh But we aren’t being sold Hemispheric Global Change - Now are we? BY Your logic, Australia and New Zealand Tempertures should not be used in the totals of Global Warming. :tsktsk::tsktsk:

Only if you believe that global warming must have the same effect everywhere on the globe, even when explicity told in advance that the effect at regional levels will vary.

Meanwhile, if you are capable of actually understanding what’s being said, you would have no problem with the concept that global warming can simultaneously cause greater precipitation and greater drought. I’m amazed you haven’t latched onto that one yet.

 

[JasonSB]

Soooo ???

WARMING IS different than AGW.

Comprehension problem? I was quoting one of the most prominent “skeptical” scientists and the words he used to try to stop his “skeptical” audience from making themselves look like idiots because it reflects badly on the more technically literate “skeptics” who have much more nuanced positions.

I just thought you might want to know what the more technically literate “skeptics” had to say on the issue.

I find it amusing that “skeptics” love to include all these guys on their lists of “scientists who don’t accept AGW”, but then when these guys try to tell them what they do accept their followers try to shoot them down – as Spencer found recently on his blog and Pielke found on WUWT. Perhaps “skeptics” should not include scientists on “their side” if those scientists actually accept a whole bunch of things that those “skeptics” don’t agree with.