David Bailey
Member
I'm sure that we affect the system... there is evidence in other systems that I have researched, but do not have full access to the raw data, such as CO2 uptake and others. My main problem is that the AGW proponents use temperatures as their data to prove the thesis, but it doesn't show up in our largest, most complete database, the satellite data. Their data comes from surface observations (obs), which are a small subset, with inherent problems. Among these are improperly designed obs stations, untrained observers, sites placed on the outskirts of major metropolitan areas where they were once relatively unaffected by the heat island effect of the concrete, asphalt, exhaust, etc. of the city, but weren't moved as the sprawl overtook the wx (weather) site. These data are then "massaged" to correct for these flaws, typically by people without the training to do it correctly (if even possible; this assumes you know precisely why it is suspect, and all of the causes), and most often with agendas. I'm not at all convinced that it isn't a blip in the data that has happened many, MANY times before.
I utterly agree about this - and all these flaws in the temperature data have been extensively documented by Anthony Watts, who seems to have forced some corrections to the official temperature data!
To me this saga is also an example of a growing trend to try to squeeze a 'signal' out of data which is obviously too noisy. People (i.e. some scientists) seem to have a naive idea that given enough signal processing they can always get what they want from the data!
David