One engineers perspective on global warming 33

In forum1554 MVP members of eng-tips.com develop articles for publication on the Internet. This informal peer-review process has resulted in several articles being published thus far. Early indications make this seem to be an effective way to make information available to the engineering profession.

One of the articles was on my perspective on global warming. It was published today.

I would be very interested to participate in a discussion here about the article or the subject in general. There were several conversations that were started and then cut short in the Engineering Writers Guild because that group is intended to promote publication, not debate points of view. If anyone want to take up those conversations, this is the place to do it (although it is too late to correct formatting, grammar, or punctuation errors).

The article is available at: One engineer's perspective on global warming

Thank you to all of those who worked hard on this article to keep me more or less honest. I had a lot of help, but at the end of the day any errors and/or omissions are mine. I'll share the credit for the good stuff, but I own the mistakes.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

I gave you actual measured temperature data that showed a temperature rise of equal amplitude and greater rate.

All that you demonstrated was that short term (11 year) REGIONAL noise was at a similar rate than short term global trends. Let me break it down for you:
[ul]
[li]You used a regional data set to compare against global data and then used such an apples to oranges comparison to make a definitive, broad sweeping statement about global climate trends.[/li]
[li]You picked far too short a period (11 year) to determine anything significant. Especially when using a regional data set, which is even more susceptible to short term noise. Again, I'll highlight that 2010, while the hottest year on record globally, was the coldest year since 1986 for HadCET. HadCET cannot be used to draw conclusions about global climate trends because it is far too susceptible to regional noise.[/li]
[li]You’ve failed to explain how the warming during the 1700’s coincided with warming effects by natural forces but the warming after the 1950’s coincided with cooling effects by natural forces and anthropogenic aerosols. This makes your comparison even more apples and oranges.[/li]
[/ul]

If you don't compare like with like then you haven't demonstrated anything.

Couldn’t agree more…

What more is needed?

An explanation of how global temperatures, OHC, sea level and humidity can rise; sea ice, glacier volume and snow coverage can decrease, all while solar activity has been in decline and aerosols have increased substantially. Oh, and this explanation must be consistent with other observations such as
[ul]
[li]nights are warming faster than days[/li]
[li]the troposphere is warming, while the stratosphere is cooling[/li]
[li]the tropopause is rising[/li]
[li]the ionosphere is cooling and contracting[/li]
[li]outgoing longwave radiation along bands associated with CO2 has decreased[/li]
[li]downward radiation along bands associated with CO2 has increased[/li]
[/ul]

Again, by bringing up the argument “it’s natural”/”it’s changed before” you’ve backed yourself into a corner that needs a scientific explanation to get yourself out of.

Of course, climate has changed before and, historically, climate change has been natural. However, recently, natural climate change would have had the direct opposite result of the observations we’ve seen. This is incredibly unnatural and has never been seen before. This deviation away from the norm requires an explanation. The scientific community and I have ours, what’s yours? I’d welcome other skeptics to help GregLocock out with this one.

 

[2dye4]

Greg

""That is to say that in some studies warmer trees would have narrower tree rings. I do not know the implications of this for dendroclimatology, but it certainly looks problematical.""


Why does it look problematical. This whole science is statistics based which means trying to be correct on a weighted average of results.

So the devil is in the details. Check out figure 2 in the tree study. Most of the indicated properties seem to have a positive correlation with temperature.
That means that there is a 'signal' in them in the sense that they can provide meaningful information as a proxy.

The primary method used in MBH98 is Principle Component Analysis. In this method if the signal isn't there in one measurement series it does not appear in the output or modify it if I have my understanding correct.

PCA looks for a common time series embedded within a large group of time series with their average values removed. So if each measurement series contains a
bit of this same pattern within it to varying degrees this embedded pattern no matter what it's source contributes to the reliability of the signal.
This is how tree rings and many other proxies are combined.

Lets all read this

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

I think I will try to work on the output of MBH98 by finding a filter that rejects the variation in the record from start to 1900. Then apply it to the whole series.

 

[rb1957]

if you look for "steve McIntyre" you'll find his site climateaudit.org and you'll find his story on getting hold of Mann's data and how "effed" it was.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[2dye4]

Some common logic errors expressed here.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-debating-science-withtrolls.html

 

[GTTofAK]

I'm new here I've mainly been reading the autocad forum for help with a project but this caught my eye. I find rconnor post funny and very very cliched.

“These claims require an international, inter-governmental, inter-decadal conspiracy involving every major relevant scientific journal, NASA, NOAA, and 197 national academies of science. I, myself, am a little skeptical of this position in absence of any supporting evidence. But maybe we differ on that front.”

This is an oft repeated line by propagandists. It is also a logical fallacy called Reductio ad absurdum, where you attempt to say that an argument is false because for it to be true some absurd state would have to exist. One could think of this as a form of strawman fallacy. Where you have created a false absurd state and claimed that it would have to exist for the statement to be true. AGW cannot be false because this massive conspiracy would have to exist.

There was no massive conspiracy that pushed to people eating lots and lots of starchy carbs just stupid people pushing something that seemed reasonable at the time and ignoring science to the contrary.

No such massive conspiracy need exist. Your argument is purely fallacious.


“The fact that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling”

That actually is only sign of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not of anthropogenic global warming. You can look up Freeman Dyson on this. He has been quite clear about the disconnect between stratospheric cooling and AGW. This false statement has spread around the internet due to a bad post made many years ago by Dr. Gavin Schmidt on the alarmist site realclimate.org. Gavin is a mathematician not a physicist. He has since admitted that he was wrong, after being slapped down by the physicists he works with, but the mistake is still often repeated on the internet. Sorry Gavin was wrong. CO2s radiative properties dominate in the stratosphere due to the primary source of heat being O3 absorbing UV. CO2 helps the O3 radiate heat to space more efficiently. It has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Same cause, CO2, totally different effect. The stratosphere argument is like saying that plant fertilization is proof of global warming. No it’s just proof of more CO2 which we already know.

“the fact that nights are warming faster than days”
Urban heat island effects warm nights faster than days, changes in cloud cover warms nights faster than days, changes in ocean currents warms nights faster than days. Many many things warm nights faster than days. Again this is another logical fallacy on your part, post hoc ergo propter hoc. It’s a fallacy because you are ignoring other explanations for the effect.

“the fact that outgoing longwave radiation is reduced along bands associated with CO2”

Again false. You learned this on the propagandist website skeptical science. They accomplished this lie by using an old out of date study Harries 2001. This study was preliminary and by no means proved anything. It only compared two summers many years apart. When a more complete study was done in 2007 using a full data set there was no dimming in the CO2 band, actually a slight brightening. The SS piece you read was written after the 2007 study. So the reliance on the out of date study was intentional. Again you are wrong because you are relying on propagandist websites for your information.

“the fact that downward infrared radiation is increased along bands associated with CO2”
Also false the most recent study of down welling radiation published this month in Journal of Climate found that down welling radiation is decreasing due to increased cloud cover, hello hydrological cycle and strong negative feedbacks.

“the fact that the tropopause is rising”
This is just evidence of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling which we have already covered. The fact is the that the tropopause isn’t rising nearly as much or as fast as it should per AGW theory because it isn’t warming anywhere near the rate the the models say it should. If anything its slow rate of rise falsifies the models as the entire theory is dependent on the non-existent hotstpot in the tropopause per Plass' spectral broadening. You just cant make a prediction of + or – you have to make measurable predictions and so far the predictions of what is supposed to happen in the tropopause have fallen flat on their face. Predicting a rise of X and getting a rise far <X isn’t evidence that you are correct. It’s evidence that you are wrong.

“the fact that the ionosphere is cooling”
True, but again a false argument. The ionosphere gets its energy from the suns SR not IR from the Earth’s surface. The cooling ionosphere is proof of a cooling sun nothing more. Given its low density the ionosphere responds far faster to changes in solar output than the troposphere.

“contracting and the fact that anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources all go to provide a causal link to anthropogenic CO2 being the main driver for recent climate change.”

Naturally you are trying to associate light and heavy carbon ratios. However, we do not even fully understand everything that effects the ratio of light and heavy carbon. Dr. Salby was recently stranded at the Paris airport by his university and fired for showing rather convincingly using real evidence that light the light to heavy carbon ratio rises whenever the earth warms so to attribute the change entirely to the burning of fossil fuels as the IPCC does is a false argument.

“Many “skeptic” arguments from blogs and libertarian think-tanks sound appealing on the surface, especially to those of us with an education in science but no specialized training in climate science. Their points are made even more appealing if you have a strong belief in the free-market as you will have an apriori rejection to the proposed solutions.”

This fallacy is called psychogenetic fallacy assuming that because people are biased they reached the false conclusion. All people are biased that does not mean that all people reach false conclusions.

“Reviewing peer-reviewed literature and articles from credible, relevant scientific institutions like NOAA, NASA, Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences is a good place to start.”

Argumentum ab auctoritate, appeal to authority.

While you arguments may sound good on their face it becomes clear that they are mainly fallacies or false statements based on either incomplete data, out of date data, or a total misunderstanding of the physics involved.

 

[GregLocock]

Well that's pretty simple- there are no global measurements of surface temperature that go back further than 30 years, so before that EVERYTHING is either local or a model. Even the satellite records are models to some extent as evinced by the differences between the various estimates.






Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

GTTofAK
Welcome to the discussion. Most of us have lost the energy to even read rconnor's posts. Please fight the good fight until you also run out of energy.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

GTTofAK,

Thank you for taking the time to bring up a few points. It's nice to hear something different from time to time. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it's the same old-same old just in different packaging.

It is also a logical fallacy called Reductio ad absurdum...AGW cannot be false because this massive conspiracy would have to exist.

Ah, yet more latin phrases that over stretch their use. I would actually love for this to actually be Reductio ad absurdum because, I agree, it is incredibly absurd. Unfortunately, because it's absurd doesn't make it Reductio ad absurdum. Did you read zdas04's post about the "three long-haired hippies"? I've given a pretty accurate account of his stance on the issue.

To the latter part of the snippet, that is a claim you made, not me. Frankly, this is creating a straw man of my argument. Skeptics claim that the reason there is such little peer-reviewed evidence to support their side is because their is a massive conspiracy within academia to suppress such publications. My argument is that this is absurd and there is no supporting evidence for it. In fact, I've provided evidence that such publications DO exist, which counters this claim.

[Troposphere warming while stratosphere is cooling] actually is only sign of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere not of anthropogenic global warming.

This is more of a comment to the "it's the sun" people. If increased solar activity was the cause of the recent warming, then you would not see stratospheric cooling.

However, I'm unsure if you are familiar with Santer et al 2013, which further supports my point. The paper concludes:

Computer model estimates of the ‘human influence’ fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. So in current climate models, natural causes alone are extremely unlikely to explain the observed changes in the thermal structure of the atmosphere.

But I do like being accused of "appeals to authority" and a skeptic appeal to Freeman Dyson in the same post.

Many many things warm nights faster than days.

Again, while this is true, it fails to address the heart of my argument. Solar activity (which is a popular one here) cannot account for this, neither can many skeptic counter-arguments.

When a more complete study was done in 2007 using a full data set there was no dimming in the CO2 band, actually a slight brightening...Again you are wrong because you are relying on propagandist websites for your information.

You know, that or peer-reviewed literature:
Gastineau et al 2014
[link proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262]Chapman et al 2013[/url]
Chen et al 2007
Griggs and Harries 2004
...Shall I continue?

Also, can you provide a quote from Griggs and Harries 2007 (I'm assuming that's the paper your talking about...) which supports your claim. I re-read it and can't find anything.

“the fact that downward infrared radiation is increased along bands associated with CO2” Also false

Wang and Liang 2009
Wild et al 2008
Evans and Puckrin 2006
Philipona et al 2004
...Shall I continue

Also, regarding the paper you (kind of) referenced (Gero and Turner 2011?...by the way, you read HockeySchtick? Because although it appeared there last month, it was published in JoC in 2011...), I'd heed the authors comments from the abstract:

Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions.

Furthermore, this paper deals with US Southern Great Plains only, hence the title of the paper. That's your big knockdown counter? I can't say I'm not surprised...

If anything its slow rate of rise falsifies the models as the entire theory is dependent on the non-existent hotstpot in the tropopause

This is really off-base. Maybe a bit of reading to start.

Also, from John Christy (yes, the champion of "missing" hotspots himself):

It is likely that a net spurious cooling corrupts the area-averaged adjusted radiosonde data in the tropical troposphere, causing these data to indicate less warming than has actually occurred there

Or read this rebuttal to a Spencer post. Spencer never responded...

The cooling ionosphere is proof of a cooling sun nothing more.

Again, so much for the "it's the sun" meme.

I could go on but I think I've proved my point. You put in a lot of effort to that post and I applaud it. However, most of it was sophism, while other parts were just flat out wrong.

 

[HenryOhm]

rconnor,

Well, that was quite the smackdown!

GTTofAK

"Dr. Salby was recently stranded at the Paris airport by his university and fired for showing rather convincingly using real evidence...."

Yes, again, that liberal conspiracy at play. Ummm, Dr. Salby, you mean this guy(?):

http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/I06090025.pdf

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/hig...ry-salby-support/story-e6frgcjx-1226696589221

You mean the guy who was fired for anything but being a skeptic, instead for simply padding his wallet unethically. Another class-act global warming skeptic, just out for the truth, oh and a little cash on the side.

zdas04,

"Most of us have lost the energy to even read rconnor's posts."

Yes, keeping up with all them facts can be pretty tiring. I mean he posts charts and graphs and links to published papers, and you guys come up with references to "long-haired hippie types."

 

[zdas04]

Henry,
Read the last long thread and you'll see that those "facts" are simply cut and paste from the last 5 times he posted the same model-generated graphs. I do not accept that computer models can do anything beyond illuminating the attitudes and biases of their authors. This is often quite useful in "will this thing work?" kind of questions, but in forward-looking analysis it is worse than worthless.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[GTTofAK]

"Ah, yet more latin phrases that over stretch their use. I would actually love for this to actually be Reductio ad absurdum because, I agree, it is incredibly absurd. Unfortunately, because it's absurd doesn't make it Reductio ad absurdum."

It is reductio ad absurdum because you insist that the absurd situation has to exist therefore falsifying the premiss. You are not arguing that it may exist or that it can exist. You are insisting that it has to exist. That is what makes it a logical fallacy.

"Did you read zdas04's post about the "three long-haired hippies"? I've given a pretty accurate account of his stance on the issue."

First of all anything that zdas04 said doesn't mean that your argument isn't reductio ad absurdum. I read his post as an analogy for group think and group bias. I seriously doubt he meant that there were 3 hippies. That you think he was serious just speaks poorly on you.

"To the latter part of the snippet, that is a claim you made, not me. Frankly, this is creating a straw man of my argument."

Your argument is quite clear AGW has to be real because for it to be false the level of support the theory has would require a massive conspiracy. I easily gave an example of a massive scientific consensus that was not only wrong but dangerous to the public health. It required no conspiracy just massive group think.The heavy pushing of high processed starch diets in the late 80s and 90s. I noticed that you didn't even try to refute this example. You simply chose to ignore it because you had no refutation and even if you could somewhat refute it I would easily pull another example in the history of science such examples are essentially infinite. This one example alone proves that your reductio ad absurdum is false because the absurd state doesn't have to exist for a false consensus to exist.
“This is more of a comment to the "it's the sun" people. If increased solar activity was the cause of the recent warming, then you would not see stratospheric cooling.

However, I'm unsure if you are familiar with Santer et al 2013, which further supports my point. The paper concludes:”
This logical fallacy is called if by whisky where the person attempts to take both sides of an argument. In your fist sentenced you agree that stratospheric cooling is a separate issue and you didn’t mean that they were related just that “This is more of a comment to the "it's the sun" people”.
Then in your next sentence you cite a paper by Santer that tries to push the connection between AGW and stratospheric cooling.
“Computer model estimates of the ‘human influence’ fingerprint are broadly similar to the observed pattern. In sharp contrast, model simulations of internal and total natural variability cannot produce the same sustained, large-scale warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. So in current climate models, natural causes alone are extremely unlikely to explain the observed changes in the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
Santer here is engaging in multiple lies here chiefly lies of omission and context. We need only look at how Santer parses his words to see the lies.
“Computer model estimates of the ‘human influence’ fingerprint”
Notice that he doesn’t say AGW or climate change. He just says ‘human influence’. This is actually 3 types of lying at the same time it’s a lie by misleading and dissembling, it’s a lie of omission, and it’s a lie by context. Santer is a very skilled liar.
We have already agreed that the cooling stratosphere is the result of increased CO2, probably in large part due to human emissions. So it is human influence. However, since the assumed context of Santers paper is AGW the reader is left to assume that ‘human influence’ means AGW. This is called lying by context. Santer changes the context from AGW to simply “human influence” while leaving the reader to assume the wrong context. Santer seems to be quite the skilled deceiver.
On stratospheric cooling being due to ‘human influence’ I agree with this Just as much as any warmist like Santer. Anyone who studies the issue knows why the stratosphere cools. However, Santer doesn’t explain it as I did. He doesn’t explain why CO2 cools the stratosphere as I did in my previous post. He leaves out the why and how. This omission of why and how leaves the reader to assume that it must be due to AGW. This is lying by omission.

Of course all of this is done with intention to mislead and dissemble. The logic Santer uses of comparing CO2 forced models with natural models is fallacy of the undistributed middle, CO2 being the middle. Santer uses some clever logical footwork here. The natural models don’t show stratospheric cooling because they lack the increase in CO2. The forced models show cooling because of CO2 allowing the O3 in the stratosphere to radiate more efficiently, this is a physical process the models model quite well in fact. By playing with the middle and the readers ignorance on the subject Santer is able to create the impression that AGW warming in the troposphere causes stratospheric cooling. This is lying by misleading and dissembling.

When you know the simple physics that I and many other people know about why the stratosphere cools the parsing of Santer’s words stand off the page like a sore thumb. Once you understand the why and how the single run one sentence you posted shows him to be a total snake in the grass and would make anyone question the ethics of anyone in the field if this kind of obvious deception is so easily allowed to stand in the literature.

I have to work now and I will get to the rest of what you posted later but something that jumped off the page to me as lowly electrical engineer was the first sentence of your first “study”

“The changes of the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in clear-sky conditions”

“Clear-sky conditions” seriously? When testing real world response we are allowed to cherry pick the most advantageous data points to prove our assumptions? Are we going to allow the engineers who designed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge get away with saying that under ‘calm wind conditions’ their design performed as expected? This kind of cherry picking when doing real world testing does not fly in engineering at all! I cannot patent a new type of insulator and say that in real world testing my new insulator worked perfectly, on calm sunny days. In real world testing I can’t cherry pick conditions. No engineering journal would ever let me or anyone else get away with that. That the AMS let the authors of your “study” cherry pick their conditions speaks very very poorly of the entire field. The hydrological cycle is a major climate feedback, arguably the major climate feedback, minimizing its effect by cherry picking “Clear-sky conditions” when trying to determine the significance of CO2 under real world conditions makes any such study absolutely worthless. As an engineer if I did such cherry picking and someone got killed or injured I would probably go to jail.

 

[2dye4]

The Gish Gallop is the rapid presentation of a series of points (including falsehoods and half-truths) during a debate. The Gish Gallop's strength is it takes less time and technical knowhow to present each misleading point than it does rebut them.

Read more at:

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-debating-science-withtrolls.html#jCp

 

[GTTofAK]

2dye4,

You say that your source makes a logical argument but the title is

"What I learned from debating science with trolls"
argumentum ad hominem

He then says accuses the "trolls" of argumentum ab auctoritate, appeal to authority.

"Internet trolls know who their experts are."

Howwever instead of sticking to the science he imediattly attmept to refut what he sees as argumentum ab auctoritate with argumentum ad populum saying that more experts agree with him and he is therefore correct

"There are thousands of professors scattered across academia, so it isn't surprising that a few contrarians can be found."

I'm sorry nothing here seems very logical. It just seems to be some guy attempting to refute what he sees as logical fallacies with his own string of logical fallacies.

 

[rconnor]

there are no global measurements of surface temperature that go back further than 30 years

…
HadCRU
GISTEMP
NOAA
JMA
BEST

Now, I will agree with you that many of these data sets have very poor Arctic coverage. As the Arctic is warming faster than any other location, you’re right that these data sets are reading cooler than they should as of late – thanks for reminding us. See Cowton and Way 2013 for the correction to this.

So, GregLocock, still waiting to hear your explanation of how energy is increasing (based on various metrics) while natural drivers should be causing cooling. “Force X” maybe (I still cannot believe they seriously called it Force X)?

HenryOhm, ha, I read that line about Salby and I just gave up, so thanks for driving the final nail in. (Have you read his rebuttal yet? Santer’s a liar and a fraud but Salby is an honourable man wrongly punished for going against the climate change hegemony! And the rest isn’t much better…)

One thing that you’ll realize is that skeptics on this forum don't value properly supporting their arguments. It’s the reason why GregLocock referred to me as “Cut’N’Paste boy” (I do love that moniker, maybe I’ll make it my signature!). Using references from prestigious journals and credible scientific institutions are apparently nothing more than “appeals to authority”. I partly understand why - it’s rather unfair on our part. After all, they don’t have any such references to support their side…you know, because of those “three long-haired hippies”.

Now zdas04 is upset that I’ve used the same references more than once. Apparently scientific support is disposable and can only be used once then it becomes useless and you need to find new science. This is a problem for me because I’ve already used Newtonian physics once today! I suppose I’ll have to use relativity for the rest of the day…tomorrow might be difficult! This also fails to realize that skeptics here continue to peddle the same unsupported claims over and over again and ignore the science that directly counters their opinions (*cough* the “pause” *cough*). Then, after successfully ignoring any rebuttals, some new, completely random argument is brought up.

 

[2dye4]

I thought maybe the guiltiest party would take offense.

"You say that your source makes a logical argument" Actually I did not say this.

Appeal to authority is not quite as illogical or erroneous in debate some believe. We humans learn an awful lot from
accepting carte blanche what we hear from others. We also learn early on to suspect opinions that are far from
accepted understanding especially when voiced by a small minority.

So pertaining to MMGW, the consensus is rapidly approaching that point where we should accept the mainstream scientific view.
What alternative is there when very very very few of us can form an independent and credible rebuttal on our own research mainly
because of lack of scientific and mathematical ability and access to data.

Incidentally can you put up some credible medical sources that supported the

"" The heavy pushing of high processed starch diets in the late 80s and 90s ""

See there I go appealing to authority. Oh well I guess I could discount all authority and solve everything myself??

 

[beej67]

So is anyone on the AGW side of the debate going to stand by the premise that avoiding 0.02 degrees of rise is better for the environment than preserving rain forest area in excess of the entire country of Uruguay?

Because, you know, that's still what happens when you throw all the skepticism out and presume the EPA is 100% correct about anthropogenic CO2 and warming.

The disconnect between AGW science and the ROI on the proposed policy is even more vast than the disconnect between the skeptics and believers in AGW.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[GTTofAK]

2dye4,

"I thought maybe the guiltiest party would take offense.

"You say that your source makes a logical argument" Actually I did not say this."

Uh you do know that you have posted that link twice, right? I read it the first time and what you said about it.

"Some common logic errors expressed here."

So yes you did say that, the first time you posted the link.

Nice try. I might be new to this forum but I am a very competent debater such tricks wont work.

 

[GTTofAK]

"So pertaining to MMGW, the consensus is rapidly approaching that point where we should accept the mainstream scientific view.
What alternative is there when very very very few of us can form an independent and credible rebuttal on our own research mainly
because of lack of scientific and mathematical ability and access to data."

You do know you are on an engineering forum right? Compared to my day job this stuff is actually pretty simple. Just like everyone else here I can see errors in method very easily. This isn't some leftwing political forum where the posters are scientifically illiterate. As the OP put it so eloquently in his blog post that kind of argument simply doesn't fly here.

 

[GTTofAK]

rconnor,

HadCRU
GISTEMP
NOAA
JMA
BEST

To the best of my knowledge the surface record is a post hoc creation. Data from weather stations that were mainly installed for piolts to calculate lift, something that doesn't need to be very accurate, was used well after the fact to calculate an average global temperature.

So GregLocock is very correct prior to 30 yeas ago there is no global measurement. What you listed as global measurements are ad hoc, post hoc, attempts to reconstruct a global average from a desperate network of heterogeneous stations that where never intended to be used for that purpose. Again while this is something that while useful, like a climate model, would never fly in engineering as a gold standard or even very reliable.

 

[2dye4]

"You say that your source makes a logical argument"

"Uh you do know that you have posted that link twice, right? I read it the first time and what you said about it."

What I really said about the article.

[Some common logic errors expressed here.]

I don't know about your competent debate skills but my statement does not at ALL speak to whether the arguments are logical, I said they were expressed.

There is a difference. But anyway this is tacky wordsmithing.

Please do put up some evidence where qualified scientific opinion was so thoroughly in agreement on a topic and turned out to be incorrect.
You claimed it to be relatively common I believe.
And of course that evidence would be scientific literature of some sort. Or a reliable publication that aggregated qualified scientific opinions.