New Report Just Dropped A Bomb On Key Climate Change Data

And what was the atmospheric CO2 level at that time? Where was Earth within the Milankovitch cycle?

 

Gee Wow! A picture of North America

You do realise do yo not that the globe comprises more than the land mass of North America

 

"most journals work". Most? This isn't in with the most.

 

Show us a world map of the rest of the surface stations and their ratings then please.

 

There is several credibility problems with this work.

1. I can only find the abridged work. The full work does not seem to be available. What is available is something for the general public, not something for interested peers to review and question.

2. References are poor.

3. Only results and interpretations are revealed. The method to reach those results and interpretations are not revealed.

4. "Clearly the historical GAST data adjustments that have been made have been dramatic and invariably have been favorable to Climate Alarmists’ views regarding Global Warming"

The above is not a scientific statement. It has no place in a scientific paper.

5. This work has not been published by an independent peer reviewed medium.

 

Over 60% of the surface temperature stations are in the US. Some parts of the world have none. For instance, there are large sections of Africa the don't.

 

Observations aren't models.

 

Every type of climate or environmental change causes extinction because environmental change will push off species that aren't adapted to it that were barely surviving anyway. The main cause of extinction is human activity. Add to that desertification, and that only increases the extinction rate.

 

It leaves the burden on science to perform. These are the things we know. Climate has changed in the past. The climate is changing now, and it will continue to change in the future. This is immutable. It is knowable.

So, science has a duty to express perhaps the pace of the change. If, as some believe, there is an anthropogenic component to it, science has a duty to attempt to decouple the natural process and the anthropogenic one to describe the influence of our ability to add to or otherwise influence that change. Unfortunately, to date, this ability to differentiate doesn't actually exist. If you read the studies, and the literature, it's an all or nothing conversation today. Any change is man made, even though there is an equally convincing set of data that suggests that it is nature simply changing.

So, we have, roughly, <1F of actual "global" temperature warming. Which, frankly, is a stupid measure given the number of and differentiations of climate regious around the globe, all of which are in transition.

 

Actually they have compared the results of stations in urban areas to those in rural areas and there is virtually no difference. This theory really doesn't hold any weight. And a lot of studies account for the heat island effect anyway.

 

Which is simply not, empirically true. Ask a dinosaur how man influenced it's ultimate demise.

 

Sure it did. The question is, so what? It isn't the largest one to have ever calved is it? Nor is it in any way a significant amount of the total ice still retained in Antarctica is it? Do you feel that this ice berg is an immediate threat to anyone outside of shipping at this point? Will this produce the claimed 16 feet of sea state rise flooding the entire east coast of the US? Do tell....

 

Things like a Comb are beneath these kind of deep thinkers apparently lol.

 

For things this important, it's ok if we just guess, right?

 

Historically the extinction rate is very mild and then an extinction event happens that radically increases it for a time that leads to a large number of species going extinct, like what happened with the dinosaurs. Today there is a new extinction event and that is human activity and extinctions are far above normal.

 

As the say in court, facts, not in evidence. This is, given the paucity of the fossil record, unknowable. And yet, you've ascribed something as unknowable as a certainty. It's almost like faith....

 

This sounds like stranger danger to me. Supposedly just being a stranger means there is danger. What about the nice people?

I am using an analogy over climate. So many people are frightened by the Democrats or those called left wingers that many fear life itself. The Larson shelf calves a huge iceberg and suddenly it is the end of the world.

I post scientific material on this yet it seems to not get noticed. Why not study it?

This is a for instance.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-part-a/#more-23197

 

We actually know what the background extinction rate is and the fossil record gives us a very good idea. When you chop down forests and take up a lot of land that is going to dramatically increase the extinction rate. How do you not see that?

 

See, this is what I'm referring to. I said that the fossil record will have holes in it. Massive holes in it, and yet you come back and reassert that same use of the massive hole data set as the foundation of your argument. It's just not ever going to work. There simply hasn't been sufficient work done to develop a comprehensive knowledge. Both because the record is variable depending on where on the globe you're referring to, and the amount of it which is constantly destroyed by the very earth itself. It is unknowable. To assert then that you have some authority to declare something is simply laughable.

What I find amusing is this idea of the requirement from the science crowd that all things must remain static. Convenient, yes, but unrealistic in the extreme. Things change in nature. Species adapt. Just like when dinosaurs transitioned back to smaller, more adaptable reptiles and birds. Things change. There is ZERO expectation that things would ever remain static. And just on a side note..... do you really suppose that your knowledge, or that of our species today is comprehensive enough to determine that we are, or even should be, in a position to determine the path? Are we that self entitled?

 

I know you take no Qs.

But I will try.

If you take a thermometer and walk into one house and measure 50C temperature of air and then walk into another house and measure 75C temperature of air, can you say which air is warmer?

 

What theory?

What was shown in the table you were replying to ?

 

We guess up to a 1200km radius.

 

Yes, because it is junk and would not have been accepted in any reputable journal. As I have said before, if this was an undergraduate in a research methods, they would have failed. <Rule 3> You can create your own company or foundation, and have a "peer reviewed" journal. Using that platform, you can publish anything. <Rule 2/3> Most laymen can clearly see that this journal article is a farce. Anyone within academia like me, just shakes their head at this article and moves on. If you want to prance around and proclaim victory over this garbage, go ahead; however, it weakens your argument even more.

 

The data you see from an MRI is based on a model. The data you see from hubble or any telescope is based on a model. Each of these observations are processed with complex mathematical models before they are handled by researchers. I can give a myriad of more examples. Finally, our perception of the world is due to highly processed information that is modeling the world based on previous experiences. Shall I continue?

 

It's what the OP is about. Your post doesn't hold any weight without links to reliable sources.