Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Pixel42]

And when the data spills over into the 19th or the 21st it's used and still quite often referred to as the 20th Century.

But that spillover data is never used when calculating the 20th century average.

And do I need to remind you there are several cases of just that posted in this very thread?

Not one single case of the use of "20th century average" you have insisted is commonplace has been posted in this thread.

What's absurd about this is the prolonged discussion.

Once again, the only thing you're getting right.

Reading a paper and seeing they used the years 1880-2006 and then seeing it referred to as the "20th Century Average" isn't absurd.

Reading a paper and seeing that the total dataset covers 1880-2006 and then assuming that references to "20th century average" being made elsewhere are calculated wrt that whole dataset is completely absurd.

The fact that NOAA specifically mentions how they used the truncated data set instead of the "full period" is recognition of the fact that people could become easily confused (because the convention isn't real, it's imagined)

Another of your reading comprehension failures. That's NOAA explanation of why they chose the 20th century average as their baseline period, it's not why they chose the years 1901-2000 to calculate that average. They chose 1901-2000 because that's the universally accepted convention.

Luck? Where?

Here:

There's no "definition" of the "20th Century", it's just a general description and not to be taken literally to mean the years 1901-2000. The fact that NOAA happened to use it was simply dumb luck in this particular instance.

I don't have to ask, they've provided the reason for doing so, it's "conceptual simplicity", not some made up universally accepted convention nonsense. If that were the case there wouldn't have been a need to point it out like they did.

Again, that's the reason why they chose the 20th century average as their baseline for calculating anomalies, not the reason they used the years 1901-2000 to calculate it that average.

Feel free to do so, they will just reiterate what they've already posted. Specifically ask them about this "universally accepted convention".

OK, I will.

No you said the same one.

More reading comprehension failure.

It isn't arbitrary, it's based on more data or more reliable data becoming available among other things.

Changing the baseline used to calculate the 20th century average from 1901-2000 to something else would be an absurd thing to do in any circumstances.

Nonsense. The only thing I fail to comprehend is how making up something makes it true. There's no "universally accepted convention" on what the colloquial usage of "the 20th Century" is to be about.

Even if that were true, and it isn't, we're not talking about colloquial use, we're talking about use by NOAA.

There's been numerous cases, posted here.

Still waiting for that single case of "20th century average" being calculated with a baseline greater than 1901-2000.

It's quite clear the term is colloquial and not some "universally accepted convention" like you made up. Denial of this simple fact will not make it any more true. It's one thing to say in most cases it refers to the years 1901-2000 and quite another to insist the whole world should have to follow your made up convention.

The only person here who's denying simple facts is you.

 

[Halsu]

Does this issue really come down to who you trust?

In a way, it always does ;-)

In this case, the vast majority of scientists, including NASA, all academic bodies, universities etc. are on the "yes" side. In other words, as far as scientists are concerned, the "yes" side isn't divided much politically - there's a consensus that goes beyond ideological or political borders.

The "no" side however comes almost solely from the libertarian circles - in fact, most "critic" scientists are affiliated with the free market think tanks to the extent that they are listed on the institutes' staff pages.

The public is generally unaware of this, and what you say about the political divide is true, especially in the US.

 

[Furcifer]

But that spillover data is never used when calculating the 20th century average.

Nonsense. I cited the mandate which encouraged scientists to use the data from 1880-1899 in their "20th Century Simulations". I've then cited several of the simulations that do just that.

Not one single case of the use of "20th century average" you have insisted is commonplace has been posted in this thread.

Try reading the articles. It's clear that the "20th Century" simulations include datasets from as far back as 1880.

Reading a paper and seeing that the total dataset covers 1880-2006 and then assuming that references to "20th century average" being made elsewhere are calculated wrt that whole dataset is completely absurd.

No, the insistence that there's some imaginary convention, when clearly there isn't is absurd.

Another of your reading comprehension failures. That's NOAA explanation of why they chose the 20th century average as their baseline period, it's not why they chose the years 1901-2000 to calculate that average. They chose 1901-2000 because that's the universally accepted convention.

No it isn't, it says they chose it for "conceptual simplicity". Conceptual simplicity isn't a convention.

Changing the baseline used to calculate the 20th century average from 1901-2000 to something else would be an absurd thing to do in any circumstances.

And yet there's clear evidence they encouraged scientists to do just that. It's irrefutable proof that most of the "20th Century Simulations" actually use data from 1880-1899. That's actually hundreds of simulations.

Still waiting for that single case of "20th century average" being calculated with a baseline greater than 1901-2000.

It's been cited, as has the mandate for using the dataset from 1880-1899 in the "20th Century".

The only person here who's denying simple facts is you.

The simple fact is there's no "universally accepted convention", it's an imaginary construct you made up. Maintaining belief in something imagined is denial, especially when confronted with the mounting evidence to the contrary.

 

[Furcifer]

I'm surprised at the number of people not following this. It's laid out explicitly in the THE WCRP CMIP3 MULTIMODEL DATASET

If you want to talk about a "convention" it's laid out here rather nicely.

The list of experiments included the following (single realizations were acceptable, but modeling groups were encouraged to run multimember
ensembles):
1) Twentieth-century simulation to year 2000 (preferable starting from pre-industrial conditions in the late 1800s) with anthropogenic and natural forcings as modeling groups deemed appropriate

This was first laid out in 2003, they tried to get as many scientists to run simulations as possible using as many variables as possible. These "20th Century" simulations were encouraged to use the dataset back to 1880 in order to have as much data as possible. The fact that these simulations included the years 1880-1899 isn't confusing for those of us not holding onto some imaginary convention.

The fact is many "20th Century" climate simulations actually include the years from 1880-1899. It's quite obvious NOAA deviated from this "convention" in order to simplify things for its readers. Just because scientists were urged to use the entire range of data for their 20th Century simulations hardly constitutes a "convention", and yet it's certainly more of one than this notion that they only include the years 1901-2000.

 

[Furcifer]

No it is a report as it states itself.


Which is a report (as it states) on the subject of climate and climate change. The same as AR4 or any other report on the subject.



The AR4 is a report because it calls itself a Report.

Being peer-reviewed is one of the criteria for a document to be a scientific paper. So AR4 is a report because it

• was not published in a journal.
• did not contain original science.
• and states that it is a report!

Charney, J.G., et al., 1979: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. is a report because it

• was not published in a journal.
• did not contain original science.
• and states that it is a report!
• and was not really peer-reviewed (it was reviewed though!).

But I can see where your confusioin came from so: a report

• is not published in a journal
• or is not peer reviewed
• or does not contain original science.

A scientific paper

• is published in a journal
• and is peer reviewed
• and contains original science.

Can you see the distinction that is used in science?

Nonsense. Please cite your source, the MLA, APA or CSE are the accepted sources for formatting papers. If it exists, which it doesn't because this is made up, show it here please.

 

[Pixel42]

Nonsense. I cited the mandate which encouraged scientists to use the data from 1880-1899 in their "20th Century Simulations". I've then cited several of the simulations that do just that.

What on earth has this, or anything else in this or the subsequent post, got to do with how a reasonable person would interpret the phrase "20th century average"?

Nobody is talking about the data used in simulations. We are talking about the data used to calculate the 20th century average.

The bottom line is that when I search the internet for '20th century average 1901-2000' I get 24,900 results, whilst you have yet to find a single instance of anyone calculating the 20th century average for anything using a longer baseline.

As the NOAA guy put it in his reply to my latest query (my bold):

We use this particular base period because it is easily recognizable and generally understood to be the Century that began on or about 1900 and ended on or about 2000. We can also continue to refer to it in time, making for a more consistent baseline than the moving 30-year normals. It also happens to be the only century for which we have complete data (of this type), so that's helps make the baseline values stable over time.

Note how he also confirms that they don't change the baseline when they improve or extend their dataset, in fact he specifically says one reason they chose the 20th century as their baseline is because it can be used consistently over time.

He does add that

I don't know if there's a universally accepted convention. There certainly isn't a mandate that says "you will use these years as the 20th century".

which is fair enough - it's not like anyone who decides, for reasons known only to themselves, to describe anything other than the years between 1900 and 2000 as the 20th century is breaking the law or anything - but I cannot understand why any reasonable person would ever just assume that a scientific organisation was using something other than the generally understood definition of 20th century average.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I'm not big on global warming but how can you deny that mankind is having at least some small impact?

 

[Reality Check]

AR4 is a scientific paper, there's no question of that. It's completely absurd to claim otherwise.

AR4 is not a scientific paper. There is no doubt about it and it is completely absurd to claim otherwise because of the following reasons

1. It was not published in a scientific journal and
2. It did not contain original research and
3. It was reviewed and by peers. But this was not a review of any original research because that did not exist. It was a peer review of the contents of the AR4.
4. And most importantly: It explicitly calls itself a report: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

 

[Reality Check]

There's been numerous cited in this thread already. I don't see any point in citing more.

Wrong: you have failed to produce any citations to them so far

• trends are not averages!
• Monthly averages are not 20th century averages!
• Annual and seasonal averages are not 20th century averages!

If there are more than these failures in this thread then tell us where they are rather than just asserting that they exist.

 

[Reality Check]

Nonsense. Please cite your source, the MLA, APA or CSE are the accepted sources for formatting papers. If it exists, which it doesn't because this is made up, show it here please.

Nonsense. This is nothing to do with formatting documents.

This is about the fact that a document that calls itself a report is a report.

This is about the fact that a scientific paper is usually published in a scientific journal and (hopefully!) undergoes peer review. A scientific paper always contains original research.

And then there is your little bit of hypocrisy. You have stated that the only science that you trust are scientific papers published in journals. But here you are citing a report that was not published in a journal!

What if this report was on the web, would it be a scientific paper then?
Here is a 'scientific paper' according to what you seem to want a paper to be:

A detailed look at climate sensitivity
​

Of course I would call this a report or just an article.

P.S. It has been a couple of days since I asked you
Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011). Any response yet?
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

 

[CapelDodger]

None the less it's almost verbatim from the NOAA website.

I rather doubt

"Yes, NOAA uses a truncated data set for "conceptual simplicity", apparently thet feel comprehending full dataset is beyond most of their readers."

is almost verbatim from the NOAA website. I really do.

This is a nonsensical question.

After you said that the world warms "every summer" (your post #3496 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7519416#post7519416) I was bound to ask when that was, in your view. To me it sounded like nonsense.

Incorrect, they have been for 18000 years. That's considerably longer than "decades".

Ice has not been receding for 18000 years.

None of which has anything to do with global warming. The change in weather is hardly "alarming".

You dismissed mere reference to this subject (droughts and floods becoming more prevalent) as in itself alarmist, but now you acknowledge that they are occurring. Weather isn't climate, of course, but a changing climate does manifest as changing weather.

In fact it's quite comforting.

That's purely subjective. To people facing the prospect of more floods after those they've already experienced it's probably quite disheartening. Droughts are perhaps more debilitating but they're strung out; when your home or business gets flooded it's very immediate and very horrid.

What?

What I said.

The definition would be "clinical" not "scientific" considering it's a behavioral condition.

There's varying opinion as to why this has caught on as a description of "warmists".

It's rather obvious. The denier cult has been labelling climate science as a religion sine the beginning, just as believers call biologists dogmatists. It reinforces your belief that you're being rational and the others (the normals, outside your cult) are the blissed-out ones.

In my opinion it's because alarmists have an almost religious like fervor when it comes to climate change.

The fervour and irrationality is displayed by such as yourself. The denier cult has its gurus - Watts, McIntyre, Monckton, Morano, Lindzen, and the ever-present Smokin' Fred Singer - and its true beliefs - it's not happening and it's a good thing and it's all a conspiracy. Unable to think in any other context they create gurus for the "outsiders" - Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the ever-popular Al Gore. We normals don't regard them as gurus at all, of course.

Originally the term was coined by Albert Einstein Award Winner and Nobel Laureate Richard Fenyman to describe scientists, much like today's climate scientists, that don't give the information in the most objective or unbiased manner possible.

That is not the source of the metaphor (for metaphor it is). It refers to a style of thinking, conservative to the core, which sees the superficial features of a structure (economic, social, political in the main) as representing the whole.

Consider, for example, someone who has only ever observed prosperity in an economy governed by the use of fossil fuels. If such a person came to believe that using fossil fuels was the secret to prosperity, that fossil fuel onsumption was indeed the measure of a society's strength, they would seek to maintain the outward show - driving cars, say, and subsidising fossil fuel production - as a form of magical incantation. Hence the Cargo Cult.

Climate science is, of course, nothing like that. Nor are all the sciences that overlap with it.

realcrapclimatescience.com and crapticalscience.com are prime examples of what Fenyman was referring to as "cargo cults".

No, they aren't.

Nonsense. You're obviously confusing the National Academy of Sciences with all the National Science Institutes in the world.

No, I'm not. Google for National Science Institutes that do regard climate science as pseudosience. You could start with the Czech Republic, that would be promising - it's where the Heatland Conference's "leading international figure" usually comes from.

Perhaps you misunderstood, Mann and his so called "hockey stick" aren't worth anyone's attention.

And yet Mann and his (with et al) historical reconstruction have received, and continue to receive, so much. It's what made McIntyre a guru.

It's garbage science from one of the more prominent figures in this "cargo cult". It should be very easily forgotten.

The prominence is projected by the likes of you. Mann is one of the denier cult's demons, not anybody's hero, and his reconstruction has been superceded by many others very similar. You care about Mann, we don't, except insofar as we find the demonisation and harrassment of a decent working man offensive.

 

[Furcifer]

I rather doubt
is almost verbatim from the NOAA website. I really do.

For the global-scale averages (global land and ocean, land-only, ocean-only, and hemispheric time series), the reference period is adjusted to the 20th Century average for conceptual simplicity (the period is more familiar to more people, and establishes a longer-term average).

If you had actually read the website you'd know this and have no doubts.

After you said that the world warms "every summer" (your post #3496 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7519416#post7519416) I was bound to ask when that was, in your view. To me it sounded like nonsense.

That sounds like nonsense to me.

Ice has not been receding for 18000 years.

Yes it has.

You dismissed mere reference to this subject (droughts and floods becoming more prevalent) as in itself alarmist, but now you acknowledge that they are occurring. Weather isn't climate, of course, but a changing climate does manifest as changing weather.

None of which have anything to do with climate change and this thread. I suggest you start a thread on weather.

That's purely subjective. To people facing the prospect of more floods after those they've already experienced it's probably quite disheartening. Droughts are perhaps more debilitating but they're strung out; when your home or business gets flooded it's very immediate and very horrid.

It's called causality, none of which is proven. This is just typical alarmists claims unsupported by science.

It's rather obvious. The denier cult has been labelling climate science as a religion sine the beginning, just as believers call biologists dogmatists. It reinforces your belief that you're being rational and the others (the normals, outside your cult) are the blissed-out ones.

Well there have always been people claiming the world is about to end because of the coming apocalypse and there have always been people saying it's nonsense.

I've leave it to you to decide who's been right, over and over and over again.

The fervour and irrationality is displayed by such as yourself. The denier cult has its gurus - Watts, McIntyre, Monckton, Morano, Lindzen, and the ever-present Smokin' Fred Singer - and its true beliefs - it's not happening and it's a good thing and it's all a conspiracy. Unable to think in any other context they create gurus for the "outsiders" - Mann, Jones, Hansen, and the ever-popular Al Gore. We normals don't regard them as gurus at all, of course.

A necessary evil I'm afraid. Alarmism accomplishes nothing and has proven to be a huge waste of money. It's the Ying and the Yang.

That is not the source of the metaphor (for metaphor it is). It refers to a style of thinking, conservative to the core, which sees the superficial features of a structure (economic, social, political in the main) as representing the whole.

This doesn't make any sense.

Consider, for example, someone who has only ever observed prosperity in an economy governed by the use of fossil fuels. If such a person came to believe that using fossil fuels was the secret to prosperity, that fossil fuel onsumption was indeed the measure of a society's strength, they would seek to maintain the outward show - driving cars, say, and subsidising fossil fuel production - as a form of magical incantation. Hence the Cargo Cult.

No, that's not it at all. You should read up on Feynman and the Cargo Cults, fascinating how similar it is to climate change and the current alarmist cults popping up on the internet.

No, I'm not. Google for National Science Institutes that do regard climate science as pseudosience. You could start with the Czech Republic, that would be promising - it's where the Heatland Conference's "leading international figure" usually comes from.

What it is and what cherry picking Cargo Cultists try to make it out to be are two different things.

And yet Mann and his (with et al) historical reconstruction have received, and continue to receive, so much. It's what made McIntyre a guru.

Mann's a joke, and so are his methods. He's probably the number one reason the pseudoscience label get bantered about as much as it does.

The prominence is projected by the likes of you. Mann is one of the denier cult's demons, not anybody's hero, and his reconstruction has been superceded by many others very similar. You care about Mann, we don't, except insofar as we find the demonisation and harrassment of a decent working man offensive.

Why would he be considered a demon? He almost single handedly took down the IPCC, he exposed the IPCC for the pseudoscientific front that it really is and contributed greatly to the US puling its funding. Because of him there's more transparency in climate science than ever before. Likewise, people are taking a harder look at how things are or more importantly aren't getting published on climate science.
He's going to be a funny foot note in the annals of climate science history.

 

[Furcifer]

Nobody is talking about the data used in simulations. We are talking about the data used to calculate the 20th century average.

*sigh

We are indeed talking about these simulations. The paper the NOAA value was taken from, the Smith paper (or report ) was one such simulation. I really suggest you familiarize yourself with how climate science works.

The bottom line is that when I search the internet for '20th century average 1901-2000' I get 24,900 results, whilst you have yet to find a single instance of anyone calculating the 20th century average for anything using a longer baseline.

Incorrect. There have been quite a few shown and indeed the number of simulation that actually used the full period data set as their "20th Century" is probably in the hundreds.

Note how he also confirms that they don't change the baseline when they improve or extend their dataset, in fact he specifically says one reason they chose the 20th century as their baseline is because it can be used consistently over time.

This is irrelevant.

which is fair enough - it's not like anyone who decides, for reasons known only to themselves, to describe anything other than the years between 1900 and 2000 as the 20th century is breaking the law or anything - but I cannot understand why any reasonable person would ever just assume that a scientific organisation was using something other than the generally understood definition of 20th century average.

As I said, because the paper it's taken from uses the "full period".

I don't understand why you're insisting that they would take less data to compute the average just to follow you're "universal convention"? Nobody cares, and if there's good data from 1880-1899 why throw it out? I kinda see how it's "conceptually simpler" but if you know the data goes back to 1880 it just doesn't make sense. Especially given WCRP quote. If all of the simulations are run from 1880-present or 1880-2003 the odd ball out is the 1901-2000 simulation.

 

[Warmer1]

Antarctic ice-flow map reveals clues to climate change.

From Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/video/2011/0...als-clues-to?videoId=218738420&videoChannel=6

 

[Furcifer]

Food for thought...

For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

The 2010 corn growing season was excellent!Corn yields were record breaking - with 95% of the yields submitted to Agricorp, the provincial average stands at 172 bu/ac (10.79 tonnes/ha); undoubtedly, when all acres are reported this will result in a provincial average yield that is significantly higher than any previous year. Prior to 2010 the highest OMAFRA provincial average corn yield was 156 bu/ac (9.78 tonnes/ha) in 2008

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2010 was the warmest on record at 14.5°C (58.1°F), which is 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).


April weather was abnormally warm and relatively dry resulting in perhaps the best soil conditions and earliest corn planting ever experienced in the province.


I noticed this correlation when I was looking though the anomalies page. Some people just don't understand what a benefit warming may actually be to areas that grow the world's food. They've convinced themselves that Global Warming means drought and desertification. That's the furthest thing from the truth. More heat units means more crops, that's a proven fact.

The rate of development of crops from planting to maturity is dependent mainly upon temperature. Cool temperatures slow down the progress to maturity and warm temperatures hasten maturity. Other environmental factors - such as photoperiod (daily period from sunrise to sunset), soil fertility and available water in the soil - can also influence the rate of crop development.​

What isn't known is what effect warming will have on the water supply.

People have asked "What's alarmist? Define it". An alarmist will look at the above evidence, dismiss what's known and instead focus on the unknown to come to a conclusion that is in contradiction with the actual facts.

It's quite possible the negative model predictions may never match with the positive empirical results.

 

[Pixel42]

The likely extent and impact of AGW and the most cost effective ways of mitigating it are almost certainly the most important and challenging topics that can and should be being discussed in the science forum of a board like this. If not here, then where? So it is of real concern to me that such a discussion appears to be impossible, on this or any other forum where I've seen such a discussion attempted.

I've come to the reluctant conclusion that the only solution to the problem is for every sincere poster to simply ignore the heckling, and respond only to reasonable questions and valid, supported points. I know how hard it is to leave ridiculous unsupported assertions unchallenged, none better, but when the result is weeks and pages of pointless argument about the definition of phrases whose meaning is self evident or the difference between well known and understood terms it is clear that such responses only serve the agenda of those who make them.

A recent post by JFrankA asked sensible questions which could form the initial basis of the discussion going forward. This interesting experiment might also generate some on-topic debate. If we can demonstrate that it is possible to have an adult conversation about this subject the mods might eventually take the thread off moderated status, which I'm sure discourages many forum members with worthwhile contributions to make from posting.

I would also like to respectfully request that the mods create a Part 2 of this thread. Not only would that reduce the unnecessary load on the server I'm led to understand is caused by threads as large as this one, it might also help encourage new posters to join the discussion.

 

[Trakar]

In science and scientific papers it's quite common to use "mean" as a synonym for "average". In statistics we talk of the mean, median and mode, not the "average" per se.
For a data set, the mean is the sum of the values divided by the number of values.
When reading scientific papers and you see this term "mean" you can mentally replace it with "average".

non sequitor, unless you can demonstrate an example of the use of the term "20th Century average" which includes measurements outside of the 20th century time frame.

 

[Trakar]

I posted this link in another thread, but it probably belongs here.

The recently released National Research Council report Understanding the Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for our Climate Future has a lot of good scientific information about climate change in the Earth's past. The entire report can be downloaded as a PDF for free.

Thank-you for sharing! I knew this report was being prepared, but its publication slipped my notice. The end of Summer and start of Fall are always busy times for me.

 

[Trakar]

I'm surprised at the number of people not following this. It's laid out explicitly in the THE WCRP CMIP3 MULTIMODEL DATASET

If you want to talk about a "convention" it's laid out here rather nicely.

The list of experiments included the following (single realizations were acceptable, but modeling groups were encouraged to run multimember
ensembles):
1) Twentieth-century simulation to year 2000 (preferable starting from pre-industrial conditions in the late 1800s) with anthropogenic and natural forcings as modeling groups deemed appropriate

This was first laid out in 2003, they tried to get as many scientists to run simulations as possible using as many variables as possible. These "20th Century" simulations were encouraged to use the dataset back to 1880 in order to have as much data as possible. The fact that these simulations included the years 1880-1899 isn't confusing for those of us not holding onto some imaginary convention.

The fact is many "20th Century" climate simulations actually include the years from 1880-1899. It's quite obvious NOAA deviated from this "convention" in order to simplify things for its readers. Just because scientists were urged to use the entire range of data for their 20th Century simulations hardly constitutes a "convention", and yet it's certainly more of one than this notion that they only include the years 1901-2000.

Except of course that nothing in this linked presentation supports your contentions of a "20th century average" compiled using measurements not in the 20th century. In fact, "20th century average" is not even mentioned in the document. As to your goalpost shifting "20th century simulations" contention, all it takes is a bit of reading to see that the specifics of what the author was talking about is spelled out later on in the statement:

...The CMIP3 multimodel dataset has also been used to help understand climate changes that have already been observed during the twentieth century. For example, model results for the twentieth century have been analyzed, in concert with additional single forcing datasets from some of the models, to show that the signature from large volcanic eruptions, such
as Krakatoa in the late nineteenth century, persist and are manifested by reduced ocean heat content for decades after the event. This offsets, to a certain extent, the positive radiative forcing and associated warming that would otherwise have occurred due to increasing greenhouse gases in the early twentieth century (e.g., Delworth et al. 2005; Gleckler et al.
2006)...

Notice, again, the clear and deliberate distinction between 19th century and 20th century measurements and occurrences. The early 20th century simulations had to include considerations of the forcing factors and trends established in the decades prior to the start of the 20th century, but nowhere is it implied or stated that 20th century average temperatures were calculated with the inclusion of 19th century temperature measurements.

 

[Cuddles]

If you want to argue about the difference between a paper and a report, please do so in an appropriate thread rather than derailing this one.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles