On Jul 24, 2017, rockwall wrote:
You'll have to read the report to figure that out. ... and to answer my 2nd questions. Do you find fault with something in the report?

On Jul 24, 2017, rockwall wrote:
You'll have to read the report to figure that out. ... and to answer my 2nd questions. Do you find fault with something in the report?

Embarrassing Error # 1:

The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.

These datasets incorporate information from thousands of individual weather stations, ocean measurements and satellite data. Each of these datasets incorporate as many high-quality temperature data sources as possible, including many in common. Then, each dataset is constructed and analyzed using different methods. Why? Because this is what scientists do to be confident about their results. Scientists test and re-test datasets to see if – using different methods and approaches – they get the same results as their colleagues working independently. I would not want to fly in a plane that had only been inspected once – would you?

Embarrassing Error # 2:

The authors falsely claim that the NASA, NOAA and Hadley CRU GAST records do not properly take into account factors such as urban heat islands and changes in the technologies used to measure land and ocean temperatures over time. They also falsely claim that each of the datasets has selectively biased results in order to exaggerate an upward trend in temperature.

In fact, it is well-established that these datasets do account for these and other factors needed to ensure consistent, comparable and accurate results. Researchers have repeatedly found that the methods used to account for these issues do not affect GAST records to any substantial extent. The size of global surface temperature increases swamps the noise associated with these known and well-studied factors.

Embarrassing Error #3:

The authors cherry-pick some examples in the US as “evidence” that they use to try and refute the well-documented increase in the global average temperature.

Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU datasets include these regional variations. Bottom line: there is a pronounced increase in the global average surface temperature since pre-industrial times and such regional variations are to be expected.

The near-complete lack of references to other scientific studies that examine their spurious claims and the extent to which the authors of this document take information out of context is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

On Jul 24, 2017, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 24, 2017, rockwall wrote:
...the extent to which the authors of this document take information out of context is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

I can post-truth too.

On Jul 25, 2017, tommy wrote:
Since the believers think the climate isn't cyclical do they think it could be summertime this winter?

On Jul 25, 2017, rockwall wrote:
Speaking of "Embarrassing Errors", I can point out at least one from each point of "analysis" done by Dr. Rachel Licker. It appears Dr Licker is more interested in misrepresenting the report she is supposedly "fact checking".

1 Embarrassing Error #1.
Dr Licker claims that, "The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.".

This is a mis-representation of what they state in their report. What they say is, "It is not surprising that there is good agreement between NOAA, NASA and Hadley on past temperatures given that they all largely use the same raw data. The “best estimate” that has been reported is that 90 – 95% of the raw data is the same in each of the data sets." Then they quote Dr. Pilke that, "The differences between the three global surface temperatures that occur are a result of the analysis methodology as used by each of the three groups."

You'll notice that Dr. Licker doesn't dispute the fact that 95% of the raw data is the same. She makes her big argument that the three agencies use different analysis methods while overlooking that the report acknowledges that the three groups use different analysis methodology. I'll rate this 2 Pinocchio's.

Licker: These datasets incorporate information from thousands of individual weather stations, ocean measurements and satellite data. Each of these datasets incorporate as many high-quality temperature data sources as possible, including many in common. Then, each dataset is constructed and analyzed using different methods. Why? Because this is what scientists do to be confident about their results. Scientists test and re-test datasets to see if – using different methods and approaches – they get the same results as their colleagues working independently.

2. Embarrassing Error #2
Dr. Licker claims that, "The authors falsely claim that the NASA, NOAA and Hadley CRU GAST records do not properly take into account factors such as urban heat islands and changes in the technologies used to measure land and ocean temperatures over time."

They do no such thing. In accuality, they explain that the reasons the agencies need to make adjustments to the raw data is 'because' of heat islands, etc. They never claim that the agencies ignore these. I rate this claim "Pants on Fire".

Wallace et al: All of these challenges notwithstanding, calculation of GAST requires that, after the raw data are collected, some adjustments clearly must be made. For example, both Time of Observations and Urban Heat Island adjustments have been shown clearly to be necessary. It has been argued elsewhere that the “adequacy” of adjustments to historical GAST data has not been sufficient “to remove warming biases.

3. Embarrassing Error #3
Dr. Licker claims that, "The authors cherry-pick some examples in the US as “evidence” that they use to try and refute the well-documented increase in the global average temperature. "

Here Dr. Licker completely misrepresents most of the report. First off, the authors are not even trying to refute an increase in global average temperature. What they are doing, is showing how the flattening of the data by removing cyclical patterns and the lowering of temperatures in the first have of the last century while raising the temperatures in the 2nd have of the century creates the illusion of a much sharper increase in temperature than the data actually shows. The authors also don't simply "cherry-pick some examples in the US". They use data from around the world to show that in the northern hemisphere the cycles that show up on the original data and have been eliminated in the manipulated data did in fact exist. Again, I'll have to rate this claim as "Pants on Fire".

Now, of course, Magnus would have spotted these errors also if he really had read the report. So, I'll also have to rate his claim as, "Pants on Fire" also.

On Sep 23, 2017, The Hermit wrote:
Well it seems that the warming didn't happen as predicted. The models were faulty and didn't track. The scientists are now admitting they were wrong. But don't worry, they have new models that are better. We have 20 more years before catastrophe. Guys that can't predict weather two weeks from now, want to spend trillions on models that are unproven. When will people understand this is politics and not science.

“We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations,” Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and one of the study’s authors, told the Times of London, as reported in The Independent.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/09/2......ght.html

200 pages are coming

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, does not contradict the scientists’ concerns that global warming is dramatically damaging the environment, but it does suggest that it’s not too late to do something about it.