| > The repeated cries of "but you didn't account for this or that, which I know as a layman, but surely PhDs in climate science didn't think about!" is inane. It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models. You made an extraordinary claim "It's in the models. Every single variable you can name and then some are in the models." I am calling your bluff. Please provide evidence of six variable things (1) The change from Whitewash to semi-latex in the painting of Stevenson screens (the old paint vs the new paint) which is a feed into GHCN (2) The change in the sizes of some Stevenson screens in some countries records (230L to 60L) (3) Analysis of the greater accuracy of space based temperature measurement which deviate substantially from in-situ measurements (4) The removal of corrupted data sources like ASOS from the Climate Record, as ASOS as placed on hot airfields and is hit by prop blast and jetwash (5) Fixes to the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) readings to account for ship altitude, height, deviation from marine surface temperature, etc. (6) Weather Station gaps used in location where urbanized city centers are extrapolated for all nearby landscape (e.g. Africa) and the large gaps in the surface temps (Antarctica, Greenland, Siberia, Sahara, Amazon, Northern Canada) |