7. Outline of Argument for AGW

by Edwin Berry

The Prosecution has completed its case against Human CO2. Human CO2 is charged with causing significant AGW and with forecast future significant damages to the planet.

Outline of the Prosecution’s Argument for AGW

  1. From 65 to 35 M years ago, T change followed CO2 change.
  2. 35 M years ago, Last Major Ice Age was caused by CO2 dropping to 450 ppm.
  3. In the last 2 M years, changes in T preceded changes in CO2 by 100’s of years.
  4. Ice-core records for past 800 ky show a relationship between T and CO2.
  5. It is valid to use 400 ky and 800 ky data to derive Climate Sensitivity (CS).
  6. “Fast” CS is about 3 C over a few centuries.
  7. “Slow” CS is about 6 C over a few millennia.
  8. Hypothesis A from 6@106 is: T – T0 = k Log( CO2 / CO20 )
  9. Human population has risen dramatically.
  10. Human emissions of CO2 are described by Post 7, Fig 2.
  11. CO2 has remained below 290 ppm for past 1000 + years, until now.
  12. Present CO2 increase of 2 ppm per year is caused by human-caused CO2.
  13. So far, human CO2 has caused a 40% increase in CO2.
  14. Earth’s T has increased about 0.5 C in past 30 years (7, Fig. 6).
  15. Earth’s T has increased significantly over past 50 years.
  16. Additional indicators of T increase are:
    1. Loss of sea ice in Arctic.
    2. Melting glaciers.
    3. Increased frequency of storms.
  17. Sea level is rising.
  18. Models predict AGW.
  19. Hypothesis A predicts AGW.
  20. Predicted increase in T is “towards relativity new territory” for last 2 MY.
  21. Cloud forcings are one of least understood aspects of AGW.
  22. [Deleted]
  23. All of the above suggests the following:
  24. Dr. Eric has concluded assuming Business as Usual:
    1. CO2 will double to 560 ppm by about 2080.
    2. CO2 will rise to 600 ppm.
    3. Fast CS will cause T to rise about 3 C.
    4. Temperature in 2100 will be 2 C greater than today.
    5. This increased T will be extremely detrimental to human civilization.
    6. We will not rapidly decrease CO2, so its effect will continue.
    7. Slow CS will cause T to rise about 6 C assuming Business as Usual.
    8. Earth could, due to irreversible feedback, become an ice-free world.
    9. Sea level will rise dramatically.
    10. Human over-population is a fundamental problem.
  25. “Hypothesis” – changed to “Model
    1. CO2 is the single-most important GHG.
    2. CO2 changes are amplified by water vapor and clouds.
    3. “Fast” CS is about 3 C over a few centuries.
    4. “Slow” CS is about 6 C over a few millennia.
    5. CS is derived from 50 M year data.
    6. CO2 increase over last 160 years show “our planet is significantly out of balance with respect to” past.
    7. This “out of balance” has been caused by human-caused CO2.

18 thoughts on “7. Outline of Argument for AGW”

  1. Point 3: "Does not matter which came first: in time, T and CO2 “change in concert.”

    … is surprising indeed,but it was stated. Dr. Eric might want to reconsider this as this implies that both would have another causal factor (if one builds on causality and the enhanced GHGE is formulated that way. Actually, it is even more awkward than the Baron von Munchhausen analogy.

  2. @2 Cyril, my main purpose for listing this outline is to be sure my rebuttal is aimed at the proper points. There is no use going off making a rebuttal on points the Prosecution did not make. I think Point 3 is a fundamental point. If Eric drops that point, he may pull the rug out from other parts of his argument.

  3. Ed and All,

    I am now "climatized" to my new environment here in Minnesota, having spent most of the day playing with our 2-year old grandson and making eye contact with Kathy and my 2-mo old granddaughter. I am now taking a breif break from those delightful chores in order to get back to the most important thing Ican do fore them, i.e. "saving the planet" into which they were born, right? Aren't you all getting pretty convinced of the need for that?

    So Ed, let me run down your list of things you think I claimed in my post 7. I will respond here only where I don't think you do it all quite right.

    concerning your point 1:

    Actually I think T change followed CO2 change over the entire period from 65My to 35 Mys ago. For example the rise in T up to 50 My ago is thought to be due to the extra CO2 emitted by increased volcano frequency as India slid under Eurasia. In addtion the sudden burst of methane (quickly changing to CO2) at 55 My ago certainly provides strong prove that that great CO2 pulse caused the T burse witnessed immediately after ward.

    concerning pt 3). Yes, but of course there has to be a reason why either CO2 or T increases first. In the last 2 Mys, T is thought to have come first usually due to slight changes in orbital forcing which was enought to change T during that delicately balanced period. After a lag of several hundred years, CO2 followed.

    Concerning 8): I don't know what you are trying to say here.

    10) Human emissions of CO2 by fossil fuel compustion are as shown in the figure I provided in Post 7. Those emissions certainly did significantly increase in about the year 1850

    11) Yes, below 'about' 280 ppm or less than 290.

    12) should read "human caused CO2" of course.

    14) This is a carelessly constructed sentence. Read what you like off the Temp versus time changes since 1880, but whatever you care to chose, please state something more in line with the data.

    21) Better summary still: cloud forcings are one of the least well-understood aspects of AGW

    22) Not good as stated, should read "Cloud forcing have been small relative to others during the last 50 years.

    24) You have misinterpreted my intended use of "I believe" here. Sometimes I say "I believe I'll have a beer" without any religious meaning intended. In this case I used "I believe", just I would use it if I were to say "I believe that the Earth is a sphere" I believe in many things much of which has come from my studies of science. In this case, religion has absolutely nothing to do with my thoughts.

    24A and B: Yes, if B as U continues

    24 D, Yes, but perhaps with a small time lag of a decade or so due to the heat inertia of the oceans

    24 E and F: Yes, assuming B as U type lack of action c0ntinues.

    24 H: Strike "will", of course, and add "could, due to slow and irrevesible feedback effects" and, again, this is if B as U type lack of corrective actions continues.

    25 G. extend sentence by adding: caused by human-induced increases in CO2 along with methane, nitrous oxide and ozone.

  4. @10 Eric,

    Thank you very much for your critique of my outline. I am happy you were able to connect to participate. Now, I am going to edit my outline above not by changing it but by adding a whole revised outline (Version 2) below the original. That way, future readers, whomever they may be (maybe they will be your grand kids), will be better able to follow us.

    So, please check in tomorrow to see how well I do with my revision. I won't begin my science rebuttals until I understand what you intended to say.

  5. Leonard Weinstein

    @ 10, Dr Eric,
    Regarding your comment "I am now taking a breif break from those delightful chores in order to get back to the most important thing Ican do fore them, i.e. “saving the planet” into which they were born, right? Aren’t you all getting pretty convinced of the need for that?". I think all of the people participating and most of those following but not directly entering the fray already have seen the type of evidence and claims you have put in here. The fact that I and they are NOT getting pretty convinced, even though I am sure they are as concerned about the future of the planet as you, ought to make you wonder why. They and I have read and studied the data and came to the conclusion that there is in fact no convincing case. As we go forward on the debate, the point by point discussion will bring the reasons each side concluded what they did, and hopefully good data and logic will allow a common opinion to form. Unfortunately, I doubt that hope will be realized, but we have to try.

  6. an addition to @

    Concerning 23) In dealing with complex systems in science, one does not harbor the notion that one can "prove" things beyond all levels of doubt – so much as suggest various levels of probable occurrence. So if you want to keep your sentence short, simply change "prove" to "suggests"

    Concerning 24E)

    "Detrimental" yes, but not tothe planet so much as to its human inhabitants.

    The planet is likely to be changed, but that is nothing new or problematic to it, of course. Earth still has about 5 billion years to go before it will be vaporized by the last throes of the Sun's first phase. What we are all talking about here, of course, concerns the preservation of human-friendly conditions that have existed on this planet for a mere moment in geologic time. — a moment that is delecately balanced against large potential changes in both directions and Man has shown that he can "help" either of those changes along. With his ability to add particles to the atmosphere, He could have facilitated the natural, orbital change of direction – towards another glacial period. Instead, however, it now appears that we are overpowering that natural course by GHG emissions so that we are setting in motions a drift backwards in time to a much warmer word instead. Because the GHG and albedo forcings are so much stronger than the orbital influence, it appears that we are pushing the planet to levels of warming not seen in the last 2 million years. The magnitude of this process is presently thought to be that of the fast feedback Sensitivity (as it is commonly expressed in relation to observed CO2 changes) of about 3 degrees C. In subsequent centuries, with B as U, we can expect a gradually double of the Sensitivity to about 6 degrees C as the slow feedbacks of sheet ice change also set in.

    So yes, the planet will be fine. Its been there before and will then decide (perhaps without the assistance of Man) what its next move will be. My concern, of course, is for the generation of my grandchildren and their descendents.

  7. Ed, Concerning revision of arguments against, we are getting there, but these adjustments are still required.

    Concerning 8), I agree that this equation applies but only over what is called the "linear range" of climate dynamics in which we presently reside. On either side of this linear range, "run-away" dynamics can possibly be reached, leading to either a "snowball"Earth or another plateau entirely – of an eventually stabilitzed but much hotter Earth.

    12 and 25) the word "human" should be changed to "human-caused". While fossil fuel combustion of the majjor part of human-induced factors, land use changes, other GHG's. particulates etc also play a role.

    Concerning 22) I have made to specific claims as to the Forcing strength of cloulds – because I have had no need to. Please remove that statement. My explanation of this request is as follows:

    The magnitudes of expected T changes I have used here comes entirely from observations of the past, and do not depend on computer symulations of the myriad details of the atmopshere. Therefore, I have had no need here to quantitatively break out the individual contribution of clouds to T changes. The Sensitivities deduced from observations of what Mother Nature has done in the past does all that for me. As Ed has previously said, Mother nature provides the best model we have and that is the model I am using here in suggesting a relationship between CO2 levels and Temperature.

    Now Ed, if you wish to use models yourself in order to argue that Mother Nature does not know what She's "talking about", be my guest. My view is that such an approach, based only on "theory" rather than observations (which do provide the closest things we have to "facts" in science), would constitute a weak case. In fact, we have all noted how the truly hard-core deniers of AGW frequently say that AGW is "just a theory" and therefore should be dismissed. Obviously, these people do not realize that the notion of AGW is based primarily on observations of the past – which just happen to increasingly support the notion of AGW – and for that far more convincing reason, you might try to help me convince those hard core deniers that the notion of AGW should not, in fact, be dismissed. For some reason (gosh, I wonder what that might be), ignorant folks such as those I am thinking of still seem to think that AGW is "no more than a theory".

    When you think about this upside down aspect of the public's understanding of climate science, one realizes that it is the notion that "AGW is not occurring" that is really "just a theory' and lacks a body of substantial supportive evidence.

    concerning 24) your spin on the word, "belief" is still far from satisfactory to me. In order to get passed this insignificant detail, lets change "I believe" to "I have concluded", These conclusions can be assumed to be based on the evidence I have presented (and more, if needed) and, of course, I will be please to defend that evidence and my conclusions. And please drop the "untestable forcasts" dripple if what you are referring to is the future. Of course, "it ain't over till its over" and "predictions are very hard to make, especially about the future". Even Yogi Berra could not tell his teammates the final score in the first inning. The only way of "testing" future predictions is by comparisons with the past. "A person can learn a lot just by watching". And that is probably why Yogi eventually turned into a good manager.

    24F) should read "we will not …… assuming a continuation of B as U approaches. "

    24G) instead of "due to" it should read 'with continuation of B as U". Ed you should have learned by now that I do not tend to assign "blame" so much as I emthasize strong correlations. Some day, I hope we have a unified theory of gravity. In the meantime, however, I am not going to risk stepping of the roof of a tall building.

    25) Change "hypothesis" to "model" . You obviously don't like my use of the latter here and I don't either – its too stuffy a term for me. I like "model" much better because I know exactly what a model is and it is more commonly used in scientific discourse. (Where have you ever heard of the Bohr Hypothesis of the Atom?. In unread legal documents perhaps?). In any case, let me know if the word "model" works better for you.

  8. Ed, I am content with my Posts 1, 6, and 7 – for expressing the very strong case for the occurrence of AGW and for the ungent need of addressing it. The case could be made longer, stronger, ect, but I also wanted it to be readily and easily comprehended by the lay public. I will provide here, however, an additional and very breif overview of what I have presented and my suspicious concerning the upcoming defense against it.

    In Post 1, I provided a very easily understood and qualitative summary of the AGW problem in which I described the rapid conversion of Geological Carbon to Biological Carbon and the very slow rate as which the reverse occurs. I then asked the question, what affect will the atmospheric component of this Biological Carbon have on our climate.

    In Part 6, I provided a quantitative answer to the last question posed above. That is, I explained related the values for Sensitivty to CO2 that have been determined from studies of historical climate changes. The result of this suggests a model by which global temperature can be reliably related to measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels – without having to know all of the myriad details that we know are, indeed, involved in climate changes and that modelers of climate must deal with.

    In Post 7, I described many changes that have been observed on Earth during the modern era of Man and showed that these changes are consistent with the model derived from the past – in which T and atm CO2 levels are coupled – and that there is no reason to expected that the presently operative magnitudes of Sensitivity of T to CO2 will be any different than they have been for millions of years. Based on those levels of Sensitivity and where we are today (with 392 ppm CO2 already in the atmosphere), I concluded that we are already well within a danger zone and will certainly have passed a "tipping point" of major significance in the present decade (if we haven't already) if B as U continues. When that point is passed and we fail to quickly get back below it, we will be headed towards climate instability and continuously increasing temperatures even if we finally do recognize the AGW problem at some future date and finally do try to stop further CO2 emissions. In other words, right now might be the only opportunity we will ever have for making effective corrective actions.

    Now where is the "evidence" for all of this? It is provided by the sum of my Posts 1, 6, and 7. With each point made, there possibly is a "probability of correctness" factor that I could have assigned and I have not done that here because the task is beyond my capabilities. However, when dealing with the complex systems in science, I also know that as the sum of all evidence is collected from those individual components, the "probabity of correctness" continually increases. In the case of AGW, I am convinced that the overall probability of correctness factor (whatever it is) has now become way too high to comfort, considering the risks involved. I am not alone in making this complex assessment, by the way. For example, the position statements concerning AGW that have been issued by almost all of the USA's professional scientific organizations are essentially the same as mine with respect to the reality and need for urgent action on the AGW problem.

    I also recognize that all of this possess a great problem for the Defense in this trial whose job it will be to refute what I have said above. From what I have seen to date, it appears to me that will be clinging to an unrealistive version of the Scientific Method that they "believe in" (learned apparently somewhere back in their inpressionable school boy classroom days). According to this simplistic version of the SM, all one has to do is find just one observable detail that is not consistent with a proposed theory and that then "disproves" the entire theory. Even though both science and common sense clearly suggests that this version of the "Scientific Method" is essentially worthless when complex issues such as climate change are being considered, I suspect that its use will be insisted upon here – simply because this "trial" is being conducted before a lay audience and some fraction of that group might be fooled by this legalistic ploy. While it is nonsense, of course, this ploy has been successfully used many times before in the court rooms of America and could be called the "Johnny Cochran" defense technique. Remember his oft repeated phrase "if the glove doesn't fit you've got to acquit!" Along with a heavy does of science bashing, it work!! So do your best with it, Ed. Perhaps it will work again with a lay jury. In the longer term "court of public opinion", however, it seldom does.

  9. @22 Eric, the following is a copy of the parts of your @22 that I believe are relevant to the subject of this debate, and I have omitted the parts I believe are irrelevant.

    Please tell me if you agree. As I am sure you can understand, I am attempting to identify as clearly as possible what your case is for AGW:

    In Post 1, I provided a very easily understood and qualitative summary of the AGW problem in which I described the rapid conversion of Geological Carbon to Biological Carbon and the very slow rate as which the reverse occurs. I then asked the question, what affect will the atmospheric component of this Biological Carbon have on our climate.

    In Part 6, I provided a quantitative answer to the last question posed above. That is, I explained related the values for Sensitivty to CO2 that have been determined from studies of historical climate changes. The result of this suggests a model by which global temperature can be reliably related to measurements of atmospheric CO2 levels – without having to know all of the myriad details that we know are, indeed, involved in climate changes and that modelers of climate must deal with.

    In Post 7, I described many changes that have been observed on Earth during the modern era of Man and showed that these changes are consistent with the model derived from the past – in which T and atm CO2 levels are coupled – and that there is no reason to expected that the presently operative magnitudes of Sensitivity of T to CO2 will be any different than they have been for millions of years.

    Now where is the “evidence” for all of this? It is provided by the sum of my Posts 1, 6, and 7. With each point made, there possibly is a “probability of correctness” factor that I could have assigned and I have not done that here because the task is beyond my capabilities. However, when dealing with the complex systems in science, I also know that as the sum of all evidence is collected from those individual components, the “probabity of correctness” continually increases.

  10. My problem is that the argument Eric seems to be making is that because the risks from AGW are so high then somehow this makes his hypothesis stronger.

    I would prefer to leave out any mention of the consequences of AGW and simply focus on the AGW hypothesis. I can't help feeling that Dr Eric relies on an appeal to emotion to bolster a fairly weak scientific theory.

  11. Gary @24,
    I am afraid it is not possible to stick to scientific arguments without questioning personal "preferences". For example, Dr.Ed (and all world of scientists in "precise science") considers that indirect "proxies" cannot be compared with actual instrumental records, because proxies must be calibrated, and the only way to calibrate then is to use overlapped records, which are none (for the proxies that are used as an argument for AGW). Yet Dr.Eric considers them as equal "method", and believes that more proxies would give him more confidence, even if every proxy are subject to individual time stretching, and/or aligning with Milankovitch periodicity, amplitudes of proxy signal are integral convolution with many other unknown factors (including cloud cover factor) and the absolute amplitude cannot be recovered in strict scientific sense.

    As another example, Dr. Eric feel very comfortable to apply fudge factor of 2 (which he claims as coming from "polar amplification") when trying to stretch observed "climate response" of 2.4K/2xCO2 with ice core dependency of18K/2xCO2, and declares all this as good fit. It took 5 messages to him to explain that modern observations are "inconsistent" with model-theoretical effect of "polar amplification", so the fudge factor should not be applied. I think that this speed of refletivity to counter-argument is not consistent with scientific method either.

    So, what do we do? We clearly have very different standards of "scientific rigor" here. Who will be the judge which one is right?

  12. It should be noted that Tom Curtis is not attentive to details. I said this about proxies used in this trial, as Vostok ice cores. There are other proxies (from Greenland, or from very special places like Law Dome) with high accumulation rate, but they still are "proxies" and require various machinations with timing of samples and assumption about past accumulation rates to meet instrumental data. And they go only 1000 or 12000 or so years back, and do not cover major ice ages.

    Jury will note that the assertion of Tom Curtis is inconsequential – proxies that allegedly overlap with instrumental records do not contain desirable information for Prosecution, while proxies used in allegations do not overlap with modern data.

  13. William McClenney

    @30

    Al, did I read that right? Law Dome cores fit that paradigm (a few thousand years), but many of the Greenland cores (such as GISP2 and NGRIP) take us all the way back to the Eemian, and some Dome Concordia cores (in Antarctica) reach back 650-800kyrs. Just trying to understand your point, that's all.

    @29
    Tom, also trying to understand your point as well. Would you mind elucidating? Overlaps are useful when comparing proxies to the instrumental record, but this only covers a relatively narrow and recent period, when instrumental records exist. Is that what you were referring to?

    At ice coring sites where the cores can take us fairly far back in time, the firn problem may conflict at the shallow depths where the instrumental record ends. Then there is the whole isotope fractionation, and in-situ reactions etc. to deal with as well. Not sure what you two are on about, that's all.

  14. William @31, what I am reffering to is that all proxies for temperature and CO2 concentrations used in paleoclimate studies are calibrated against intrumental records before being used. Different methods are used to establish the calibration for different proxies. Sometimes the calibration is made against an index of a bundle of proxies (as is typically done in recent paleoreconstructions). For other's a specific correlation between the proxy and temperatures is established.

    The latter is particularly true of isotope proxies used to establish temperatures from ice cores. A graph of the correlation of Oxygen isotopes to temperatures from one study is reproduced at the site below. Similar studies have been done for Hydrogen isotopes. So for the specific example Al Tekhasski chooses, he is demonstrably wrong.
    earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_OxygenBalance/oxygen_balance.php

    It is true that there are, as with any proxy study, multiple confounding factors. Those factors are analyzed using emperical research, and corrected for. Sometimes the correction is crude, as for example the graph that heads Dr Erics post 6 (The Last Major Ice Age). You will notice the red section of the graph uses a different formula to the blue section, the difference being a correction for the lack of major ice sheets. I consider the correction crude because it defacto assumes an identical ice mass over the period since the East Antarctic Ice Sheet formed. Considering the size of the East Antarctic Icesheet, that is a better approximation than simply no correction at all – but I would still prefer a correction indexed to known icesheet extents. Sometimes, of course, earlier studies are corrected by later discoveries of confounding factors, or refined methods of compensating for them.

    Of course, saying that proxy analysis has many stumbling blocks for the unwarry, and that current results can be expected to be refined significantly with improved techniques and knowledge is nowhere near as satisfying as a blanket denial of proxy efficacy. For a start, it means recognizing the current result as at least indicative. For a second, it means you actually have to critique the studies whose results you want to keep carefully out of sight unless people actually recognise their significance. Hence, IMO, Al Tekhasski's blanket and absurd claim.

    I note that Al Tekhasski now wishes to restrict his claim to the Vostok Ice Core data. That was not his original claim, ie, "… proxies must be calibrated, and the only way to calibrate then is to use overlapped records, which are none (for the proxies that are used as an argument for AGW)". From context, he may have intended that he only meant the argument presented by Dr Eric, but he never asserted that.

  15. William @31, see now what we are "up to"?

    Climatards believe that by using speculations about assumptions about other speculations about yet other pile of assumptions they are "correcting" signal extracted from proxies like ice d180. Just look at the reference given @32! Pile of baloney upon pile of baloney! They ("scientists" like "climategate Bradley" or clown Alley) "estimate" (explain) changes in d180 as result of redistribution of water and ice volume. Obviously the extent to which waters are depleted or enriched by 18O would depend on history of ocean circulation, which could bifurcate depending on ice boundary, and the fractionation will depend on the actual mixing layer of water about which we have no clue even today and never will know about its past. Then they assume certain circulation pattern in atmosphere which may or may not be true, likely not true. The whole thing is such a baloney that it is even ridiculous to discuss yet to conclude anything about climate change.

    The bigger problem with these "scientists" is in their brutal ignorance in scientific methods and mathematics. Even if it is a hyperbolical system under non-stationary conditions with huge Lyapunov exponents on all scales, or the signal is buried with degenerate kernel with many other factors and the ill-posed inverse problem has no mathematical solution, climatartds believe that if they would concentrate more and more, try to do the best of the best of the best of they can, some new "man's capabilities" and "future knowledge development" will override mathematics of complex systems far from equilibrium, and they would predict climate dynamics and evaluate surface temperatures to 0.3% accuracy. This is clear absurd. One smart guy, Tomas Milanovic, nicely summarized this deep misconception of climatards here:
    http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/22/the-uncertainty

    See now what we are "up to"?

  16. Leonard Weinstein

    @ 34, Al,
    I believe Tom Curtis and many of the supporters of dangerous warming are good scientists (with some notable exceptions) using good math and science on a very difficult and poorly defined problem. They came to an early conclusion based on too little data, but rushed because they were concerned that humanity was possibly facing a big danger, and there was not time to be absolutely sure. Many have gotten so locked in on the fact that it would warm, that their funding and reputation became dependent on their being correct. As the recent period without warming occurred, and this was combined with the big mistakes being shown (glaciers, forests, etc.), and the revelation of climategate, many have become very scared and lashed out. I think Tom Curtis and scienceofdoom for example are good scientists that still are convinced the problem exists, and use the best logic and information they can defending it. This is not a fully settled issue, and they may turn out to be correct, although I am convinced the problem is minor. Do not assume they are totally wrong, just counter argument with data and good logic, and we will see where we go.

  17. adelady, at your service: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    Also, don't always trust the numbers you read from AGW-dedicated institutions. They don't need to sent out teams of students to shave ice as Tom Curtis thinks, they just need to shave outliers at their discretion, grid-extrapolate and homogenize, similar to what they do CO2 data as I have shown in 6@320 and 6@332.

    On additional note, imagine you have a sine-wave function that have reached near its top point before decline. If you think about all data points around this inflection, all of them are generally "hottest" from previous minimum, and way above average. As you see, there is no contradiction between being "warmest on the record" and "period without warming".

  18. Tom Curtis wrote @42 "without having done an analysis of the data".

    Do you really understand what you write? How could one analyze data that are cut, eliminated, not collected, don't exist?

    For example, here is a partial list of stations in Tejas, (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10)

    All these stations show clear decline in temperatures over several decades. Then the data sequence stops. The following question immediately arises: why would these stations suddenly stop reporting their data into GISS database? Maybe they are terminated for economical reasons, fine. But how would you know what kind of records they would produce if not terminated? What kind of analysis it could be?

    Why do you keep quoting some ignorant and narrowly-educated blogger, guitar musician and amateur astronomer? This guy has no clue in scientific data acquisition and analysis…

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.