Discussion around the BEST controversy in AGW/climate change.

ferrett78

Re: Climate change discourse
I think BEST's greatest achievement was the detailed examination of the heat-island effect, and determined the heat-island problem had been put to rest by the 39,000 sample correlation. I say this, not because I have been able to verify this with my own eyes, but because the premise of BEST was skeptical. So I am reasonably convinced had there been a heat island effect it should have shown up in the datum.

Therefore, having put to rest that concern, its parallel information with NASA etc was certainly supportive. I (personally) have no problem conceding this, having been satisfied the data is supportive without heat island. I understand that already noted and obvious heat-island stations were *excluded from the data a priori.

The fact of late 20th century warming was never in question in my mind. It has always been the anthropological assumption. If we accept the datum with in a decade of 1939 to be statistically valid, and pin-pointing the record warm point, and if we accept the datum from 1979-1998, then the datum from 1998 to 2011 has similar weight. So if the anthropological correlation assumed in the 1st two periods were applied in exactly the same way, the problem and contention rears its ugly head again, since the rate of CO2 increase and correlation to temperature rise were applied in the same way, the 3rd period (yes only just over a decade), the cause and effect that should be expected, based on the way that it was applied decadally in 1939, and 2 decades in 1998.

I have indicated to you before that I agree counting decades is like splitting hairs when thinking about climate, but never the less the plateau is as clear as the slope from 1979 at least. The direct correlation predicted by AGW is not in the data.

A failed prediction by itself should never disqualify a theory, but it raises a flag that warrants serious analysis, and shouldn't be treated dismissively (as it is). Furthermore, in reading Dr. Currie's statement, she isn't objecting to the data, she objects to the assertion the data supports anthropological-Co2 correlation, since the plateau is quite clearly breaking from the trend. And, she is objecting to the graphing which as I pointed out earlier, was prejudicial, and suggesting a continuation of the 79-98 slope. This is a serious problem. Instead of taking it seriously, it seems to be to be treated dismissively out of hand.

I feel like I am being rather hard on you lad. But thank you for the interaction.