/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7486156
>>7486163
>UN IPCC AR4 Fig. 10-26 temperature predictions with updated instrumental temperature data. As the graph shows, the predictions failed miserably.
AR5 shows updated temps fall within the correct range. No, a badly photoshopped graph is not valid and tells us nothing. Not to mention that you are ignoring the new natural forcing data that has to be input into the model.

>That's the definition of a BAD algorithm; it can't avoid correcting clean data. Instead it treats them as bad.
I already explained this to you here: >>7484501
>It's not comparing apples to oranges because the classification of the station is irrelevant to what the algorithm is trying to achieve. Essentially it's saying that global warming will only have regional effects and thus purely local effects should be ignored. Which station produces the local effect doesn't matter. If you want to only look at certain stations then do so, but this has nothing to do with whether homogenization is valid.

>And then the inevitable appeal to authority:
So linking you to an article explaining homogenization is an appeal to authority? That makes no sense. When are you going to read the article so you can actually understand how homogenization works?

>What was their argument that the algorithm corrects the urban heat island (UHI) effect? After "corrections" the rate of warming of rural stations is equal to the rate of warming of urban stations.
This is yet another lie. If you actually read the paper (I know this is very hard for you), you'll see that he first calculates the effect of UHI by comparing equivalent raw urban and rural data pairs. He then uses a homogenization algorithm on the urban data and compares it again to the rural data and finds that this removes the difference correlated with urban sites up to the 1930s. So it's actually the opposite of what you described.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/papers/hausfather-etal2013.pdf

>>7415809
From IPCC AR5 report

>do you agree there is a 20 year pause in warming?
This is a misleading question. Depending on your point of view, all the past warming has been made of "pauses" simple because you can always draw a horizontal line through noisy data even if the trend is positive by choosing your endpoints. There is no pause in global warming. Global surface temps are not the only indicator of warming and the models for it are accurate anyway.

>do you agree that datasets were adjusted to show warming when there was cooling?
This is also a misleading question. Datasets are always being adjusted based on algorithms that homogenize and correct for various effects in the temperature record. For example, data from urban areas tend to run hot because of all the material and energy in one place. But this data gets adjusted down by homogenization because it is compared to rural areas surrounding it. So outliers, whether they are hot or cold, get adjusted. Does this mean that warming is shown when in reality there was cooling? No, it means that warming actually happened.