129 Scientists sign Letter to UN Security General Ban Ki-Moon

[skierinvermont]

Rational thought process is what this is called. I don't see any reason why KNMI would select a version of the UKMO EN3 dataset with more errors. Maybe you would, and you can explain why.

1) maybe it wasn't available at the time. All you've shown us is that an XBT corrected version is available TODAY on their website

2) I am not comfortable assuming that even if an XBT corrected version was available, that that is the one KNMI selected. You would think they would, but who knows. I'm not going to revolutionize my understanding of OHC based on an unverified assumption. If you want to revolutionize my thinking, show me some proof. Download the data or find a peer-reviewed article that includes the data.

3) If the Tisdale graph WERE correct and contained appropriate corrections it would be MAJOR news that would appear in the peer-reviewed literature. It hasn't.

4) UKMO EN3 is based off the SAME DATA (from ARGO) as NODC. It is impossible that if XBT corrections are applied to the SAME DATA, that a different result will occur.

If you take the same data, and apply the same corrections to it, the same result will occur, by definition.

[skierinvermont]

Which means if the trend is not significant, you can't claim that the trend is positive.

Yes you can. The trend is positive. The trend is .03C/decade or whatever. That is positive.

Or are you going to tell us that +.03C/decade is negative?

You can only be 70 or 80% confident that a 15-yr period will have a statistically significant positive trend (IE > .04C/decade).

You can be 95% confident that a 15-yr period will have a positive trend at all (IE >0).

[Snow_Miser]

Can we finally end this nonsense about the UKMO EN3 dataset not having any XBT corrections in Bob Tisdale's chart and in general?

http://bobtisdale.wo...as-it-appeared/

The current version of the UKMO EN3 data (EN3_v2a) is corrected for the fall rates of expendable bathythermograph (XBT) based on the 2008 Wijffels et al paper Changing expendable bathythermograph fall rates and their impact on estimates of thermosteric sea level rise.

[Snow_Miser]

Or are you going to tell us that +.03C/decade is negative?

It's within the error margins of being negative, so it could be.

[valkhorn]

It's within the error margins of being negative, so it could be.

If the error margins are equal on both sides, the trend is STILL positive. Error margins usually are equal on both sides. It amazes me the mental gymnastics you are willing to do to cling to your position in spite of the fact that the Earth has still been warming since 1998. This is a fact. You have been refuted.

I think we could save a lot of hot air by just asking you one question - could you be wrong about global warming, and what evidence would you need to be shown that you are wrong?

For me it's easy to answer this question. One needs to find another natural mechanism to account for the current warming we are seeing globally. Plenty of people are looking for it but it hasn't been found yet.