Wharfie, the problem seems to be how people read things. In the old days, Associated Octel would publish information on lead in petrol and everyone assumed they were right. But reading for meaning, closely, showed that they lied. The CO2 Alarmists are doing similar things to maintain their position.
Initially, I was a bit excited to see something apparently new which might shed light on the "settled science" which was apparently not settled after all if this new study was correct. But having read it, it's the same old pig with lipstick on.
They have put the data through a different manipulation, mangling, distortion, molestation and torturing process to come up with something which kind of better matches reality. But it's the same old Mann Made Warming.
One thing they have done is given themselves an envelope so wide that pretty much anything can fit within it, being so wide that the precision of their data manipulation, torturing, mangling and molestation process is irrelevant.
But look at those yellow diamonds, not their 10 year moving average. If they went with a 50 year moving average, they could be even more precise. Heck, they might as well go with 100 year moving average. Those yellow diamonds show the familiar travesty.
Problematically, <He added: "Of course, we should expect fluctuations around the overall warming trend in global mean temperatures (and even more so in British weather!),> See how he sneakily, or maybe ignorantly, conflates weather with climate. He suggests that the fact that weather changes locally, one minute to the next, means the climate globally should be expected to naturally vary in some random unforced way contrary to their climate models. That's false thinking and dishonest.
They claim their data manipulation, molestation, mangling, tormenting, torturing, computer models are settled science, then claim that natural variation should be accepted as diverging from their mangulation output. But why should their settled science not give the global variation precisely? If they are right that there is no forcing unaccounted for, then their models should match the reality. Their models do not match reality even short term, let alone over the last 15 years. Therefore their models are wrong. The reality is not wrong, unless their measurement of actual reality is so bung that they have no idea what they are doing even in temperature measurement. If they can't even measure the temperatures correctly, then they have no basis for deciding whether their model's output is right or wrong as there's no reality to compare with. So let's assume they are actually measuring actual temperatures correctly [which is questionable].
What's this natural fluctuation that their computers can't predict? He says it's like British weather. But he is wrong on that comparison because as he himself no doubt says, and understands, weather is different from climate. He might have been just making an unfortunate amusing analogy with British weather by way of explanation. Analogies are only descriptive so it's fair enough to not be bound by an analogy. But he should not have used such a confusing analogy to explain to ignorant people unless he was being dishonest. Does he really think British weather is like global climate? Let's allow that he just made a bit of a mistake and would retract the comparison.
Nevertheless, his point is; Our models are bung in the short term because global climate has some forcing which our models can't identify and account for. Our models only come into their own after 10 or 15 years.
What is this fluctuation which he can't identify and his models can't account for? Since he doesn't know what the fluctuation is due to and how large it will be, for all he knows, the possible divergence from this unknown forcing is very large and very long lasting.
If their models are good, they should include all forcings so that there is no deviation of reality from their model. Their models made their predictions and the yellow diamonds show that their predictions using mangled, manipulated, molested etc data were bung. Now they have an envelope so wide that the whole temperature increase over the last 100 years can fit within their allowable band of projection, which means it's totally uselessly imprecise for something that claims to be "settled science", which it is not.
To refute my argument, Landshark will say "yawn", Eric will say "you are a spack pilot and we need a climate checklist", you will say "stop sitting on your tv". No wonder the Global Alarmists are losing the argument globally. They all adopt similar arguments to refute criticism. Your local comments are like British weather = same sort of thing as the Global Alarmist climate, if you can see the analogy.
Mqurice |
