Guest post by Joe Bastardi, WeatherBell
With the coming Gorathon to save the planet around the corner ( Sept 14) , my stance on the AGW issue has been drawing more ire from those seeking to silence people like me that question their issue and plans. In response, I want the objective reader to hear more about my arguments made in a a brief interview on FOX News as to why I conclude CO2 is not causing changes of climate and the recent flurry of extremes of our planet. I brought up the First Law of Thermodynamics and LeChateliers principle.
The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred in many forms but can not be created or destroyed.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume those that believe CO2 is adding energy to the system are correct. Okay, how much? We have a gas that is .04% of the atmosphere that increases 1.5 ppm yearly and humans contribute 3-5% of that total yearly, which means the increase by humans is 1 part per 20 million. In a debate, someone argued just because it is small doesn’t mean it is not important. After all even a drop with 0.042 gm of arsenic could kill an adult. Yes but put the same drop in the ocean or a reservoir and no one dies or gets ill.
Then there is the energy budget. The amount of heat energy in the atmosphere is dwarfed by the energy in y the oceans. Trying to measure the changes from a trace gas in the atmosphere, if it were shown to definitively play a role in change (and it never has), is a daunting task.
NASA satellites suggest that the heat the models say is trapped, is really escaping to space, that the ‘sensitivity’ of the atmosphere to CO2 is low and the model assumed positive feedbacks of water vapor and clouds are really negative. Even IPCC Lead Author Kevin Trenberth said “Climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is…the fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
We are told that the warming in the period of warming from 1800 was evidence of man-made global warming. They especially point to the warming from 1977 to 1998 which was shown by all measures and the fact that CO2 rose during those two decades. And we hear that this warming has to be man-made with statements like “what else could it be?”
However, correlation does not mean causation. Indeed inconveniently despite efforts to minimize or ignore it, the earth cooled from the 1940s to the late 1970s and warming ceased after 1998, even as CO2 rose at a steady pace. Some have been forced to admit some natural factors may play a role in this periodic cooling. If that is the case, why could these same natural factors play a key role in the warming periods too.
Ah, but here is where the 1st law works just fine. After a prolonged period of LACK OF SUNSPOT ACTIVITY, the world was quite cold around 1800. The ramping up of solar activity after 1800 to the grand maximum in the late twentieth century could be argued as the ultimate cause of any warming through the introduction of extra energy into the oceans, land and then the atmosphere.
The model projections that the warming would be accelerating due to CO2 build up are failing since the earth’s temps have leveled off the past 15 years while CO2 has continued to rise.
Then there is a little matter of real world observation of how work done affects the system it is being done on. When one pushes an empty cart and then stops pushing, the cart keeps moving until the work done on it is dissipated. How is it, that the earth’s temperature has leveled off, if CO2, the alleged warming driver continues to rise?
The answer is obvious. They have it backwards. It is the earth’s temperature (largely the ocean) which is driving the CO2 release into the atmosphere. That is what the ice cores tell us and recently that Salby showed using isotopes in an important peer review paper. These use real world observations not tinker toy models nor an 186 year old theory that has never been validated.
Finally, as to the matter of LeChateliers principle. The earth is always in a state of imbalance and weather is the way the imbalances are corrected in the atmosphere. Extreme weather occurs when factors that increase imbalances are occurring. The extremes represent an attempt to return to a state of equilibrium.
The recent flurry of severe weather – for instance, record cold and snow, floods, tornadoes,, is much more likely to be a sign of cooling rather than warming. The observational data shows the earth’s mid levels have cooled dramatically and ocean heat content and atmospheric temperatures have been stable or declined. Cooling atmospheres are more unstable and produce greater contrasts and these contrasts drive storms, storms drive severe weather. A warmer earth produces a climate optimum with less extremes as we enjoyed in the late 20th century and other time in history when the great civilizations flourished.
Time will provide the answer. Over the next few decades, with the solar cycles and now the oceanic cycles changing towards states that favor cooling, there should be a drop in global temperatures as measured by objective satellite measurement, at least back to the levels they were in the 1970s, when we first started measuring them via an objective source. If temperatures warm despite these natural cycles, you carry the day. We won’t have to wait the full 20-30 year period. I believe we will have our answer before this decade is done.
UPDATE: I’m told that a follow up post – more technically oriented will follow sometime next week. Readers please note that the opinion expressed here is that of Mr. Bastardi, at his request. While you may or may not agree with it, discuss it without resorting to personal attacks as we so often see from the Romm’s and Tamino’s of the nether climate world. Also, about 3 hours after the original post, I added 3 graphics from Joe which should have been in the original, apologies. – Anthony
Rational Debate:
re: your post at August 15, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Yes! Thankyou.
But you are pointing out fact and reality. Sadly, fact and reality do not interest the trolls who are promoting their beliefs and imaginations.
Richard
Henry@P.Wilson
I am still puzzzled about it.
from short to long the wavelengths (measured in um- microns) go like this : X-ray – UV – Visible – near Infra Red – Infra Red – microwave –
What I can feel on my skin is that it (the radiation) gets hotter as the wavelength increases. Do you agree with me on this? So how can you get to -80C for 15 um. That type of radiation would freeze me up?
There is an inverse way of describing wavelength (wave number) but I cannot remember exactly how that works anymore. Something like per cm, cm-1
the shorter the wavelength, the greater the frequency energy of radiation, so supposing its 27C where you are. That radiation operates with a peak wavelength of 9.65 microns, which is shorter than 15 microns. 10 microns is 14C – the average temperature that climatologists say the earth is, though there are extremes at the poles and the tropics.
Long wave radiation has a greater distances and is cooler, that’s why its long wave, and where c02 is at its most active at interacting with radiation, then yes, you would be freezing. c02 is invisible to radiation at ground level upwards until temperatures are cold enough in the upper troposphere to coincide
Smokey says:
August 15, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Robert Murphy says:
“…the MWP… was short lived ( a few hundred years) and about .4C or so in magnitude.”
Your “.4C in magnitude” has no reference point. Did that number come from Skeptical Pseudo-Science? I’m always a little suspicious when someone tries to pretend the MWP was just a tiny blip. Michael Mann tried that, and was totally debunked.
Actually, the MWP was about 3°C warmer than the LIA. And since the current global T is only about 0.7° – 0.8° warmer than the LIA, it’s clear that the MWP was a couple of degrees warmer than today.
But it really doesn’t matter, sinc CO2 is both harmless and beneficial.
—-
Seems like you’re a bit confused Smokey. You use a graph on Greenland to show it was 3 degrees warmer there during the MWP. Then you say it’s only 0.7-0.8 degrees warmer globally today than the LIA to somehow illustrate that the MWP was warmer than today. You’re compaing a local temperature change to a global one. Cherry picking at it’s best!
Please try harder.
Slioch:
Thankyou for the laughs you gave me at August 15, 2011 at 11:32 pm.
First laugh, you assert:
“Robert Murphy has done a good job, with extraordinary patience, explaining, inter alia, why the MWP cannot possibly be the cause of the present rapid rise in in atmospheric CO2”
No, Robert Murphy used the ice core data as though it were calibrated measurement results. But, as Rational Debate explained at August 15, 2011 at 7:58 pm, such use is plain wrong.
Second laugh, you claim:
“I have added a few posts giving evidence that overwhelmingly supports the inevitable rational conclusion that humans are solely responsible for that present rise.”
No, you posted risible nonsense at August 15, 2011 at 1:55 am and August 15, 2011 at 11:30 am, and I pointed out how and why your posts are nonsense at August 15, 2011 at 1:55 am and August 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm.
And you add to that nonsense when you write:
“PS to Rational Debate: the CO2 measurements from ice-cores are not derived from proxies, they are from measurements of the CO2 itself. In contrast, temperature measurements from ice cores are, of course. from proxies.”
Say what!?
Even the IPCC says the firn takes 83 years to solidify to form sealed ice so, at best,
the CO2 data are proxies for an average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration over 83 years. Divide the rise in claimed atmospheric CO2 concentration from its purported pre-industrial level (i.e. 280 ppmv) to its present level (i.e. 390 ppmv) and you get less than 2 ppmv which is too small for the ice core data to show it. Indeed, say the true rise has been distributed linearly over the last 300 years since the depths of the LIA, then the rise recorded in the ice cores for the first and 83 years would be only 36 ppmv and for the first 160 years would be 72 ppmv which is similar to rises frequently recorded in the ice cores.
And the ice core data are not the only proxies. The stomata data also exist.
The leaves of plants adjust the sizes of their stomata with changing atmospheric CO2 concentration and this permits the determination of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations by analysis of leaves preserved, for example, in peat bogs. Their disagreement with the ice core data is clearly seen in all published studies of the stomata data. For example, as early as 1999 Wagner reported that studies of birch leaves indicated a rapid rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 327 ppmv (which is similar to the rise in the twentieth century) from late Glacial to Holocene conditions. This ancient rise of 67 ppmv in atmospheric CO2 concentration is indicated by the stomata data at a time when the ice core data indicate only 20 ppmv rise.
(refs. Retallack G, Nature vol. 411 287 (2001),
Wagener F, et al. Virtual Journal Geobiology, vol.3. Issue 9, Section 2B (2004),
Kouenberg et al. American Journal of Botany, 90, pp 610-619 (2003),
Wagner F et al. Science vol. 284 p 92 (1999)).
You and Robert Murphy would get very different results if you were to repeat your estimates using stomata data instead of ice core data.
I am laughing aloud as my mind is filled with the image of your eyes closed, your fingers in your ears, and your mouth shouting, “The truth must not be heard! The truth must not be heard! The …”
Third laugh, you say:
“The only resort for those who refuse to believe this conclusion, has been obfuscation and denial (embellished with the occasional personal insult from Richard Courtney).”
Now that really is funny!
I and others provide clear and undeniable evidence and you say it is “obfuscation”.
For example, at August 15, 2011 at 1:38 am I wrote:
“In this and the other thread I have repeatedly pointed out that the observed dynamics of the seasonal variation indicate that the dynamics of the short-term sequestration processes can easilly sequester ALL of the anthropogenic and natural emission in each year. But they don’t.
This is direct empirical evidence that the system is not being overloaded by the anthropogenic emission such that about half the anthropogenic emission is accumulating in the air.”
You ignore all such evidence, put your fingers in your ears and shout “Lah! Lah! Lah!”
And your first response to my reasoned and factual points was an insult and nothing else. It was at August 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm and said, in total:
“Richard S Courtney August 15, 2011 at 1:55 am and August 15, 2011 at 12:04 pm
I am prepared to discuss matters with people who at least are prepared to accept well-established evidence, even if they do not understand it. You are unable to accept any evidence that conflicts with your delusions, even to the extent on having to depend upon ludicrous nonsense such as Beck’s CO2 misinformation.
I really can see no point in responding to you.”
In the light of the above, I would welcome you telling me how I could “insult” you because I fail to understand how it is possible.
Richard
Henry. When you write: “What I can feel on my skin is that it (the radiation) gets hotter as the wavelength increases.”
the wavelength frequency increases – ie, it gets shorter
“You and Robert Murphy would get very different results if you were to repeat your estimates using stomata data instead of ice core data.”
Sure. Stomata data are indirect measurements and less precise than ice core data, which measure the actual CO2 in bubbles trapped in ice core layers. The stomata data widely varies from study to study; it’s OK for very large resolutions but breaks down under the type of fine resolution information we are concerned with. The stomata data is just far too noisy to be preferred over the ice core data.
The crux of the runaway global warming debate is this: will an increase in CO2 cause climate catastrophe?
The answer, based on empirical evidence, is an emphatic “No.” There is nothing unusual about the current climate, despite a 40% increase in “carbon”. Real world evidence shows that the increase in CO2 doesn’t matter at all; there is no global harm resulting from more CO2.
The alarmist crowd refuses to accept that fact. Cognitive dissonance explains their belief system; in Orwell’s term: doublethink. They truly believe that more of a harmless and beneficial minuscule trace gas will cause climate disruption. But they have no evidence to support their belief.
And the fact is that rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature, on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia. Effect cannot precede cause. Thus, temperature controls CO2 levels, not vice-versa.
Rational Debate: good post, thanks.
“And the fact is that rises in CO2 always follow rises in temperature…”
The ice core data says otherwise. The warming in the SH came before the rise in CO2, but the rise in CO2 came *before* the warming in the NH. The paper you linked to above confirmed this. And of course, that is moot since we are pumping CO2 that had been locked out of the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years in the form of fossil fuels. There’s more than one way to increase atmospheric CO2.
“Effect cannot precede cause.”
There’s more than once cause of CO2 changes.
“on time scales from months to hundreds of millennia.”
Wait, you just said before that there was a lag of 800 years. Now there isn’t? Want to rethink that?
“The crux of the runaway global warming debate is this…”
The warming will not be runaway, and is not predicted to be runaway. Read the IPCC reports; you will not find predictions of runaway warming.
Robert Murphy:
At August 16, 2011 at 4:22 am you reply to my correct statement saying:
“You and Robert Murphy would get very different results if you were to repeat your estimates using stomata data instead of ice core data.”
By asserting:
“Sure. Stomata data are indirect measurements and less precise than ice core data, which measure the actual CO2 in bubbles trapped in ice core layers. The stomata data widely varies from study to study; it’s OK for very large resolutions but breaks down under the type of fine resolution information we are concerned with. The stomata data is just far too noisy to be preferred over the ice core data.”
Firstly, and for clarity, I do not agree the ice core or the stomata data are definitive (as I have repeatedly stated on WUWT and elsewhere).
But you and Slioch choose to accept the ice core data and to reject he stomata data merely because the ice core data can be used to support your contention.
The important issue is NOT whether one can measure “the actual CO2 in bubbles trapped in ice core layers”. It is what those measurements indicate.
You assert that those measurements indicate atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time a layer of ice formed. But that is not known, cannot be known, and is very probably not true. Indeed, as I said, according to the IPCC the ice takes ~83 years to solidify so – at best – the trapped ice represents an average of the atmospheric CO2 concentration over 83 years.
Of course, the ice core data is not “noisy”. Apply 83-year smoothing to anything and it will be near constant. Indeed, only very large changes sustained over centuries would be determinable, and rapid rates of changes would be undetectable. As you say, the stomata data show much more variability and that fact alone proves the superiortity of stomata data over ice core data (which is the direct opposite of your assertion).
This effect of closure time is only one of several problems with the ice core data.
Another of the many problems is that it is not possible to calibrate the method because nobody has a time machine and conduct of a single calibration test in the present would take at least 83 years. So, the ice core method can only be assumed (n.b. not demonstrated) to represent atmospheric CO2 concentration, and that assumption is very implausible.
But the issue of calibration does not exist for the stomata data because the method has been calibrated by laboratory experiment.
So, in principle, the stomata data is superior to the ice core data because the stomata method has been calibrated but the ice core method cannot be calibrated as an indicator of past atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Slioch goes further than you and asserts that “the ice core data are not proxies”. That merely demonstrates he is as ignorant of measurement theory as he is of climate,so I will not bother to refute it exept to point out that a measurement device (e.g. a thermometer or an ice core) is a proxy (i.e. not a direct indicator) unless it has been individually calibrated. Ice core and stomata data are both proxies because the measued cores and the measure (preserved) leaves are not individually calibrated.
In conclusion, your arguments are completely invalid because they are based on the demonstrably wrong assumption that ice core data provides a direct indication of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Richard
“But you and Slioch choose to accept the ice core data and to reject he stomata data merely because the ice core data can be used to support your contention.”
No, I clearly stated I rejected the use of the stomata data for the timescales in question because their resolution is a lot lower than the ice core data’s. The stomata data is a nice, independent, low resolution support for the overall ice core CO2 numbers. The error bars on the stomata data however are about +/- 50 ppmv, which makes them unsuitable for present purposes. That’s just the facts. You can choose to accept or deny them at your own peril. Not my concern either way.
Smokey says:
August 16, 2011 at 4:30 am
Real world evidence shows that the increase in CO2 doesn’t matter at all; there is no global harm resulting from more CO2.
——-
You always bring up that argument, but what do you mean by global harm? harm to what? what do you mean by harm?
Robert Murphy:
I fail to understand why you provided your post at August 16, 2011 at 6:01 am. It completely ignores the contents of my post at August 16, 2011 at 5:38 am and repeats an assertion that my post had refuted; viz. you repeat:
“I clearly stated I rejected the use of the stomata data for the timescales in question because their resolution is a lot lower than the ice core data’s.”
As I explained (twice) the resolution of the ice core data is much less than that of e.g. stomata data because of the closure time of the ice.
Your repetition of your error does not alter the fact that it is an error. It merely proves to others that you are choosing to believe the ice core data says what it cannot say because that fits with what you want to assert.
Perhaps you are fooling yourself, but you are not fooling anybody who does not want to be fooled.
Richard
HenryP
Thanks for the link to the Easter Island data – they provide daily weather information (temperature, rainfall, wind-speed etc) since 1965.
However, you haven’t explained how the figures in your charts are derived. You say “I am able to provide these files of every black figure on the table.”.
OK, so lets take a particular ‘black figure’ and ask you to show how you have calculated it.
In your MINIMA table for Easter Island for January you give a figure of -0.005C/yr.
Please show how that is derived.
BTW, I don’t think you have responded to the recent data I showed you (Slioch
August 15, 2011 at 6:59 am) that confirmed that the minimum temperature figures (from the USA) HAVE been increasing more rapidly than the maxima, something your above work claims to deny.
Listen guys. Tonight when you have a beer or a glass of wine and have your meal,
remember that without the CO2 that would not have been possible. No beer, no wine, no food.
So tonight you all, have one on me!!!
Then we celebrate life and the oxygen (breath) and the carbon dioxide (food) that is there in the air for us to enjoy –
and we laugh ourselves sick when we think of all the people who believe that 0.01% difference in either gas is going to make any difference whatsoever to the climate- or even to the temps. around us (it is very cold here in Pretoria for this time of the year)
and don’t say I did not do my bit to make sure that what I say holds truth
hopefully old Slioch has realised by now how much work is locked in these tables of mine….
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
reply to post by: Slioch says: August 15, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Oh, now Slioch, that is just sad, truly sad! You otter have hung it up a bit earlier and gone to bed before posting this one, as it appears your thought processes had already given up the ghost for the evening. Well, we’ve all fallen into that late night trap at times.
Slioch, by the very definition, using measurements of CO2 in ice as a way to estimate even local CO2 atmospheric levels is using a proxy – from a location that is hardly typical of the average conditions on the plant. Let alone trying to use those measurements as respresentative of global average levels. Let alone using those measurements as representative of global average CO2 levels harking back thousands or tens of thousands of years ago.
Hopefully after you’ve had a cup or two of coffee this morning it will dawn on you that you couldn’t get a better example of a proxy. If not, give these a try: (#4 of course) http://www.allwords.com/word-proxy.html, the notoriously incorrect but too blasted convenient wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_%28climate%29, http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Paleoclimatology.aspx, etc.
Of course, any number of factors affect those ice bubble CO2 concentrations, e.g., errors in our estimates of when the ice firmed up enough that the atmosphere could no longer migrate in and out, pressure effects, water chemistry, crystal formations, microbial activity, coring and handling issues, and so on. All of which we can estimate to varying degrees – and very few of which, if any, we can be certain of since we have no way to directly compare to conditions at those exact time periods.
Now as to paleo-temp measurements as you meantioned – Slioch, those arn’t even ‘direct’ proxies – they are proxy estimates made from yet other proxies. In other words, they are proxy’s of proxies. The one advantage is that they’ve got several secondary proxies that are used in combination to get those estimates, which does provide a little extra confidence as compared to a single proxy being used to generate another proxy.
As to the rest of that post… “good job” = highly debatable, as is “overwhelmingly”; inevitable rational conclusion – you mean, such as tectonic plates and continental drift being impossible and absurd, bacteria causing ulcers utterly crazy; contagious most certainly spread by evil humours & not invisible bugs…. all things that I’m sure were, at the time, explained with far more extraordinary patience as to how they couldn’t possibly be, with overwhelming support from the greatest scientific minds of the day, all who were deniers clearly mired in obfuscation and denial solely for personal gain or evil intent of one sort or another.
Are you beginning to get the idea yet?
“As I explained (twice) the resolution of the ice core data is much less than that of e.g. stomata data because of the closure time of the ice.”
That’s simply not true. It’s not even close to being true. It’s not possible to debate people who deny basic facts. So, I leave you to debate someone else.
reply to post where: Robert Murphy says: August 16, 2011 at 2:35 am
It’s this handy little thing called S-C-I-E-N-C-E and A-C-C-U-R-A-C-Y, Robert. You might try it one of these days. As opposed to your unfounded assumptions, wishful thinking, and claims of complete certainty where in fact uncertainty rules the day. For that matter, you might try replying with some substance about the issue being debated, rather than posts that are nothing more than ad hominem attacks.
Richard S Courtney, in parting, I give you the raw data for the GISP2 ice core:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt
Note the data points are not separated over 80 something year intervals; they are mostly taken at intervals that represent under ten years. The resolution is quite good. Better than the stomata data, which have error bars of about +/- 50 ppmv.
Henry@Slioch
I have told you before,
I don’t trust any of the data from the UK or the US so I don’t even bother to look at it anymore. Sorry.
It is because the Gibraltar (UK) data must been changed, deliberately.
I checked three neighbouring stations (situated in different countries) and found an average increase of 0.04 degrees C per annum for maxima in that area, yet the Gibraltar data showed it was only 0.01 degrees C per annum.
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/what-hanky-panky-is-going-on-in-the-uk
How can that be?
If you look at the above link you will see how I got the results from the Gibraltar data.
If you want to see how I started my investigations, you could look here:
http://letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
If you specifically want to have the Easter Island results you must give me an e-mail address where I can send you the Excell files.
Some time ago, somebody from Australia queried my results on that obtained for Brisbane. He found a difference. To me, who was doing an objective investigation, it means all AU data are now also compromised. I won’t go back there either.
Amazing.
When I started my investigation, I was convinced we were killing oursleves with all the smoke.
(Al Gored)
When I was busy investigating I started to have some doubts.
When I tested, I was convinced. This whole global warming scare is an inbelievable hoax.
Unfortunately, because so much money is now involved, it seems nobody can stop this hoax.
It has a life of its own.
Richard S Courtney
The chart on the link below illustrates why stomata are not considered as accurate as direct samples of the atmosphere from bubbles in the ice.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1815.full
“As opposed to your unfounded assumptions, wishful thinking, and claims of complete certainty where in fact uncertainty rules the day.”
I never claimed absolute certainty, about anything. No need to make things up. Why did you?
“For that matter, you might try replying with some substance about the issue being debated, rather than posts that are nothing more than ad hominem attacks.”
I did not use ad hominem arguments. I accurately stated you are just disregarding the evidence from the ice core data because it doesn’t suit you. You, on the other hand, have, repeatedly used ad homs on this thread. Pot, kettle.
Again, as I said to another, it’s not possible to have a rational debate with someone who is not capable of accepting basic facts. A little more introspection would do you a world of good. At any rate, I’m done with you.
HenryP August 16, 2011 at 7:32 am
I’m sorry can you rephrase that for me as I don’t quite understand, you say that the Uk data only show an increase of 0.01C/yr compared to 0.04C/yr for Spain and Morocco, and this proves that it is falsified?
I don’t quite follow…
Rational Debate August 16, 2011 at 7:02 am
I think you full well understood to what I was referring with respect to my use of the word proxy – a good case can be made that almost all measurements, other than bean counting and such like, are proxies. But it is useful to be able to distinguish between direct measurement of CO2 and other measurements such as stomata, Ca/B ratios in shells or pH, and it was to that distinction that I referred.
HenryP August 16, 2011 at 7:32 am
says, “I don’t trust any of the data from the UK or the US so I don’t even bother to look at it anymore.”
Well, I think I’ll just leave you in your state of distrust. Good luck.
And you can’t tell us how you obtained the figure of -0.005C/year for the Easter Island table (and by extension any of the other data there). (You say you can tell me privately, but what use is that?)