NOAA sued for witheld documents.... More clear evidence.

[_Res Ipsa]

It's a simple straw man argument.

It isn't a straw man argument. I'll explain. As you pointed out by citing Gavin Schmidt, determining what the world average is (or should be) isn't reasonable. The reason I'm pointing out this flaw in the reasoning of global warming alarmists is because it is a flawed assertion that they are making. They are claiming the world average (whatever that is) that it is now (or some time in the past) is the average of what it should be and that the degree of global warming (1/10th of a degree per decade) will have negative effects if it continues. And that we must stop it. That is the argument that global warming alarmists (really religious fanatics if you are realistic about it) are making if you don't understand it.

I understand the argument. The fact that you have to mischaracterize it as "religious" is strong evidence that you can recite the argument, but you don't understand the argument. The argument is not that the past temperature is what it "should" be. That's your straw man. The argument is that the increase in temperature will cause changes and that those changes will be harmful. It has nothing to do with what the temperature "should" be. It has to do with how our food is grown, where our cities are located, how we get our water, etc. and the impact climate change will have on the civilization we have built.

You compared increases in annual average temperature to fluctuations in daily temperature, arguing that the large magnitude of daily fluctuations makes smaller changes in the long term average meaningless. First of all, I don't know where you live, but the temperature where I live doesn't fluctuate by 80-100 C. I checked the all-time records for temperature measured in Seattle, and the difference between the all time high and the all time low is about 55C Even so, there is a significant difference between a temperature fluctuation that occurs over a matter of hours and a sustained change in average temperature. You ducked my question about the temperature difference between an ice age and an interglacial period twice. The answer, based on a wealth of evidence, is about 10 C. A daily 10 C fluctuation in temperatures in Seattle is barely noticeable. But a 10 C change in global average temperature is the difference between Seattle existing as a city and Seattle being buried under a mile of ice. Your analogy is faulty because the magnitude of temperature changes in daily weather have completely different effects than long term changes in climate. What the climate scientists are doing is looking at all the available evidence, including basic physics, and projecting the effects of increasing temperatures. Simply dismissing that based on faulty analogies and personal incredulity are hallmarks of anti-science attitudes.

Let's put this silliness to bed, I didn't say daily. The changes we are discussing are year-over-year!!!!

You haven't put your silliness to bed. The same argument applies to temperature fluctuations over the course of a year. You are still trying to compare short term, local temperature fluctuations to long term changes in average temperatures. They simply do not have the same impact.

Finally, the claim that we can't tell anything about the past if we weren't there to see it (measure it, etc.) is simply nonsense. It is the kind of silliness that YEC types spout all the time. Inferences about the past based on evidence we see today combined with our knowledge of physics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, etc. can be perfectly valid despite the lack of eyewitnesses. If you are going to seriously press that claim, then from here on out I'm going to dismiss you as a science denier that isn't worth spending the time on.

I didn't make that claim. However, I did say it isn't valid science to take temperature data from a single location and imply that data is true world-wide.

I'm sorry that I misunderstood. Please cite me any reference where a study has taken temperature data from a single location and implied that the data is true world wide. Or is this another straw man?

[_Tobin]

First, with respect to your "expert", Ivar is undoubtedly an expert in mechanical engineering, semi conductors, and biophysics. He has no background in climate science. He has never published. His statements indicate he has little to no understanding of climate science. His criticisms are one giant argument from personal incredulity.

You say none of that matters, because he's using logic. Logic depends on the accuracy of its premises -- if the premises are flawed, the best logic in the world can only generate flawed answers. Garbage in, garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what you are getting with Ivar.

Brad,

Let me be clear. IT IS BASE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY to STATE WHY someone is wrong without stating WHERE they are wrong. Claiming that an opponent is prohibited from commenting on a topic in question because of what is or is not in their resume (or because of some other supposed bias) is a disgusting tactic that you are engaging in. Please apologize for your behavior and we'll continue to discuss this.

Regards,

Tobin

[_Res Ipsa]

First, with respect to your "expert", Ivar is undoubtedly an expert in mechanical engineering, semi conductors, and biophysics. He has no background in climate science. He has never published. His statements indicate he has little to no understanding of climate science. His criticisms are one giant argument from personal incredulity.

You say none of that matters, because he's using logic. Logic depends on the accuracy of its premises -- if the premises are flawed, the best logic in the world can only generate flawed answers. Garbage in, garbage out. And garbage in, garbage out is what you are getting with Ivar.

Brad,

Let me be clear. IT IS BASE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY to STATE WHY someone is wrong without stating WHERE they are wrong. Claiming that an opponent is prohibited from commenting on a topic in question because of what is or is not in their resume (or because of some other supposed bias) is a disgusting tactic that you are engaging in. Please apologize for your behavior and we'll continue to discuss this.

Regards,

Tobin

Hmm, I sense the approach of an excuse to cut and run.

You are citing Ivar as a source for a number of factual claims. You carry the burden of showing that your expert is reliable. I have provided reasons why it is not reasonable to trust your source for claimed facts having to do with climate science. That's a perfectly valid criticism when someone cites statements of a purported expert. I have no obligation to take anything Ivar says about climate science at face value.

If you want to claim that SST data other than satellite data are "considered unreliable," you are going to have to do better than cite Ivar as a source. Unless you want to amend your claim to "Ivar considers SST data other than satellite data to be unreliable," in which case I will agree that he does, but say "who cares?"

[_Tobin]

Hmm, I sense the approach of an excuse to cut and run.

You are citing Ivar as a source for a number of factual claims. You carry the burden of showing that your expert is reliable. I have provided reasons why it is not reasonable to trust your source for claimed facts having to do with climate science. That's a perfectly valid criticism when someone cites statements of a purported expert. I have no obligation to take anything Ivar says about climate science at face value.

If you want to claim that SST data other than satellite data are "considered unreliable," you are going to have to do better than cite Ivar as a source. Unless you want to amend your claim to "Ivar considers SST data other than satellite data to be unreliable," in which case I will agree that he does, but say "who cares?"

Not at all.

I'm only interested in this discussion to see the strengths and weaknesses of the position I'm advocating. But if you are going to engage in tactics like the one I pointed out to you, I really don't see the point of continuing discussing this with you.

[_Res Ipsa]

Tobin, I'll evaluate and critique whatever evidence you care to bring to the table. If the evidence is in the form of what some guy says on YouTube, I will absolutely examine whether he is qualified to make whatever factual statements he makes about climate science. If you quote some guy on YouTube as saying that climate scientists recently added SSTs to global temperature indices so that he could manipulate temperatures, I will absolutely evaluate his qualifications to make that statement about the motives of the people who produce the various indices. By the way, I'm still waiting for your happy agreement that you were wrong about when sea surface temperatures were added to global temperature indices.

You've resorted now to simply making personal attacks on me because I dared to point out that your "expert" ain't an expert on climate. What I've said is both true and relevant to the reliability of the factual claims he makes. But that's just a small piece of my comments. Most of what I've done is responding to the substance of your claims. And I've presented evidence to counter your claims, which you seem to be simply ignoring.

Have you even tried to understand what climate science is all about? Have you read the Working Group 1 section of any of the IPCC Assment Reports? The fact of the matter is that you can't critique what you don't understand, and nothing in your posts so far gives me any indication that you have a grasp on even the basics of climate science.

[_Tobin]

I see Brad still has failed to apologize for his intellectually dishonest behavior in this thread despite the time I've allowed him to do so. Instead of dealing with the criticisms, he chooses to attack the critic's resume. And despite numerous calls for him to provide a valid citation on when valid SST assessments were published, he has utterly failed to do so. In fact, he's been soo disingenuous as to claim to have provided a citation and NEVER DID. And yet he has the gall to demand an apology?!? Wow. Deceitful and shameful in the same package.

I said I believed they were added in 2002. You claim the first asserssments were created in 1990 without a citation. This isn't a credible response. I'll be happy to admit my error since I was uncertain when the first assessment was made. However, I think the reason you didn't provide the citation is likely because it isn't from a legitimate source that would stand up to scrutiny.

My apologies. I thought a citation to the IPCC First Assessment Report (1990) was sufficient. Here is a link to the report. On pages 207-213 you will find and index of land temperatures, an index of sea surface temperatures, and a combined index of land-sea surface temperatures. I await your happy admission of error. And an apology for a false accusation would be nice, too.