Just as a clue, if our data set happened to be planetary surface temperatures between, but not inclusive of, the orbits of Mercury and Mars and we determine an average temperature for that set - do you think there would be outliers?
It was a blatant lie anyway.
Quote from: BenTheBiased on October 10, 2017, 07:40:30 AMIt was a blatant lie anyway. There you again. What exactly was "it" that you lied about?What does "it" mean in your statement? Lack of clarity is the bane of science.
As for the US cooling trend, it shows up clearly in the data. Even GISS hasn't adjusted the data enough to remove the puzzling "warming hole".
.. it doesn't mean that climate science is bullshit, but it's interesting.
If the NH winter (boreal winter) cooling trend was just regional cooling, natural variation, where small areas showed cooling rather than the expected warming, it certainly could be handwaved away and ignored. The best handwaving is to say "yeah, but it's not global" ...
The best handwaving is to say "yeah, but it's not global" which is almost the last bastion of the true believer in "global warming is a fact no matter what any evidence shows". The next to last one is "you have to look at a longer trend". (the very last bastion is "So what?")
Quote from: F X on October 06, 2017, 08:58:17 AMThe best handwaving is to say "yeah, but it's not global" ...A direct question: is it global?
The best handwaving is to say "yeah, but it's not global" ...
It's almost as if warm air masses and cold air masses are moving around to places they don't usually go.
Wonder what it means?
Quote from: Autonemesis on November 10, 2017, 01:24:19 PMIt's almost as if warm air masses and cold air masses are moving around to places they don't usually go. No, it just means you are an idiot. One station, one year, well lets's just say using such data to try and make a point about climate is idiotic.
Quote from: Autonemesis on October 16, 2017, 10:39:13 AMQuote from: F X on October 06, 2017, 08:58:17 AMThe best handwaving is to say "yeah, but it's not global" ...A direct question: is it global? I'm betting you don't see the irony.
Quote from: F X on October 06, 2017, 08:58:17 AM... the NH winter (boreal winter) cooling trend ..A direct question: is it global?
... the NH winter (boreal winter) cooling trend ..
Oh well, you know, that's how it goes.
Proponents of creationism and intelligent design use the same strategy: Instead of providing scientific evidence in favor of their opinions, they instead focus selectively on certain lines of evidence for evolution and attempt to cast doubt on them (Nisbet 2009). They then use this as an argument to support their own views, even if these have no conceptual or empirical support.
we see the unmistakable signs of desperation beginning to peep through
The climate models that project greater amounts of warming this century are the ones that best align with observations of the current climate, according to a new paper from Carnegie's Patrick Brown and Ken Caldeira published by Nature. Their findings suggest that the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on average, may be underestimating future warming.
Greater future global warming inferred from Earth's recent energy budgetPatrick T. Brown & Ken CaldeiraNature 552, 45-50 (07 December 2017)doi:10.1038/nature24672AbstractClimate models provide the principal means of projecting global warming over the remainder of the twenty-first century but modelled estimates of warming vary by a factor of approximately two even under the same radiative forcing scenarios. Across-model relationships between currently observable attributes of the climate system and the simulated magnitude of future warming have the potential to inform projections. Here we show that robust across-model relationships exist between the global spatial patterns of several fundamental attributes of Earth's top-of-atmosphere energy budget and the magnitude of projected global warming. When we constrain the model projections with observations, we obtain greater means and narrower ranges of future global warming across the major radiative forcing scenarios, in general. In particular, we find that the observationally informed warming projection for the end of the twenty-first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius) with a reduction of about a third in the two-standard-deviation spread (−1.2 degrees Celsius) relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our results suggest that achieving any given global temperature stabilization target will require steeper greenhouse gas emissions reductions than previously calculated.
evidence-free denial of the science