Take it up with the NAS.
Take it up with the NAS.
Again, making the same mistake with science. The NAS can issue all the statements they want. Research is ongoing and exists apart from them. Moreoever, I have already seen how lead authors of the IPCC can disagree with the "statements" made by the IPCC. So saying "take it up with the NAS" is misleadingly, as I seriously doubt all those who are a part of the NAS agree with such statements. Many members of the IPCC, including lead authors, are in disagreement with public statements by that orginazation.
Here is the problem Oberon the previous warming isnt comparable.
Even by Mann, it is comparable. This is especially true given the UHI. Look at Mann's graph. Then factor in massive urbanization. The UHI accounts for the difference.
The levels of GHGs are not comparable. That the recent trend cannot be explained solely with natural variability (
Crowley 2000) but it can be explained by models incorporating AGW is what is relevant here and why the MWP argument fails.
Only there are plenty of studies which disagree, including those I have cited. Moreover, not every reconstruction of past temperatures agrees with Mann. Some posit a WARMER MWP.
You are still ignoring stored heat in ocean and land.
Which don't matter. The theory of global warming posits an increase of atmospheric temperatures due to greenhouse gasses. The satellites remain the MOST accurate way to measure those temperatures, and (suprise) they do not reveal the warming trend shown by surface reconstruction averages.
I think you have misrepresented what the satellite data supports. See below.
Wrong. The you can check out the RSS and MHU/aMHU data yourself.
This quote in no way supports your earlier assertion which was: However, these instruments have been around since 1978, don't show evidence of global warming, and even the National Academy of Sciences writes that they don't understand why the satellites don't cohere with surface temperature readings.
The NAS statment was issued in 2001, so I didn't bother to cite it again given your previous post. However, you quote older studies than the one I cited and state that "I was under the impression that three papers in 2005 sorted all this out." Only, as the article I cited from 2009 clearly states, this is not the case. Even the link you posted (which it appears you never read) does not support your view. It is merely on attempt to reconcile the differences. Nice try.
Care to try again? Preferably with something that reverses the 2005 papers which put the satellite records in line with the surface data.
It isn't a matter of reversal. Had you read the study your link cites, you would know they accounted for the differences mainly by "adjusting" the data to the other models. Plenty of modern studies show that the problem is an ongoing one, including the study I cited, which indicates that their is massive disagreement on how to read this data. In addition (just picking one study) Mears' and Wentz's study from 2008 in the
Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology shows that the satellite data show cooling (even extreme cooling) in at least the southern part of the globe.
Again, the IPCC isn't the be all end all of research. They merely go over what research has shown, and then (and it appears this is all you have read) "summarize" that data for the public and for policy makers. Which explains why so many lead IPCC authors disagree with IPCC conclusions.
Note what I actually wrote was I have already presented you with why the UHI is not a significant contributor to climate change so I would appreciate if you addressed what I actually wrote.
I have. The IPCC bases its conclusion on studies which underestimated the UHI effect.
Can you think of a better disproof of the UHI claim?
Absolutely. You didn't read the study did you?
A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban by Parker attempted one way to account for the UHI, and then determined it wasn't an issue. However, several issues are present in the study (which you obviously didn't read). For one thing, his starting premise that "urban heat islands are strongest in calm conditions but are largely absent in windy weather" is incorrect. As such, the rest of his data is problematic, and is called into question by other researchers whose studies do not conform to his.