DavidK,

"I doubt Blair has your online opinion on his radar screen, Jennifer."

Which is such a shame....he sounds like an experienced, knowledgeable guy who seeks to share his expertise to promote understanding.

We're sorely in need of that sort of expertise and articulation on our climate threads.

Thanks to those here who do their best to offer some real scientific explanation of climate to those of us who aren't trained in the disciplines.

(You know who you are)

: )

Jennifer,
A very short paragraph will do. The jump in the temperature records, caused by a probable station move, caused a real real gradual temperature rise to appear as a fictitious temperature decrease. Scientists prefer measurements that reflect reality.

By the way, across all of the ACORN database, homogenisation actually reduced the extent of temperature rise. Why aren't you applauding that outcome? Oh, I understand. Politics prevents you

So Tony153 what are the real data here. The homogenised data are modelled.

The alleged-to-be real Rutherglen annual minimum temperature data shows an abrupt shift in 1924; probably a station move to somewhere slightly cooler (-0.77 deg.C); another from 1958 to 1965; probably bad data (ACORN deleted from 1960 to 1964). The step between the 34 years, prior to 1959, and data after 1965 was 0.06 deg.C. This I believe reflected a station move also.

ACORN's step (which was actually timed for 1968 (there are time-wise CI's of course), was an upstep of 1.1degC; which was too high. It was that step that created the ACORN trend. I've used a visualisation plus 3 statistical tests to examine the data.

Whichever annual dataset you look at; naive trends each side of the 1965 break are not different to zero-trend. If the step-changes are deducted from either dataset, the resulting residuals are statistically untrending also.

I've not looked closely; but the temperature decrease may be due to higher values near the start of the record. Acorn daily data-counts show missing data from 1928-1932; 1944-1951; 1955-1959 and 1965 to 1973. These could have a bearing on variation, but less on trends.

None of this changes the issues raised by Jennifer; it simply adds a layer of explanation to the differences between the datasets, which you could have all worked-out for yourselves.

All that is left is for Agronomist to work out the Rutherglen conundrum!

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

Tony, David, Poirot

What we've just established, is that even if all you allege about temperature data were conceded,
a) you wouldn't have established any problem whatsoever, and
b) even if you had, you wouldn't have established that any policy can do better rather than worse.

You're worse than clowns; you're dishonest evasive clowns.

JKJ,

Yup.....it stands to reason that because trilobites flourished all those millions of years ago when sea temperatures were higher - that human civilisation will just take such a rapid rise in its stride.

On a geological timescale we've managed this civilistation in a tiny niche where climate favours us.

"You're worse than clowns; you're dishonest evasive clowns."

(Much easier to stick with the general "skeptic" consensus - "It's all a scam":)

Look at Tony, David and Poirot, all desperately trying to pretend as if their belief system hasn't been totally demolished.

Why don't you all just have a bit of intellectual honesty, and either answer the questions which will prove you or me wrong; or concede the general issue and admit that what you believe is demonstrably untrue?

Do you think it's not obvious? You're not answering my questions because you know perfectly they prove you wrong.

What is irrational cannot be scientific. You're just making fools of yourself.