"The cherries are picked mainly on the plains..."
Feldman et al 2015 (link) [1, 2] is supposed to be one of these 'smoking guns' of CO2-induced doom Team Consensus likes to refer to [3, 4]. Here's a graph from that paper.
At first glance a few things seemed odd:
1) Why does the time period stop in 2011 if the paper is written in 2014? Is there inconvenient data from 2011 - 2014 that suit the narrative?
2) If one causes the other, why is are the phases slightly out of alignment? If "forcing" is from CO2 why does forcing start declining a few weeks before CO2 every season?
3) The weirdest part is: why does the amplitude of the CO2 12-monthly sine wave shape double in amplitude over the 2000 to 2011 time period?!
According to the raw CO2 data there wasn't any such doubling in the seasonal CO2 signal measured anywhere in the world, including SGP.
|CO2 up until 19 Oct 2015. Peak to peak is ~1 year.|
If you take this odd, apparently custom-manufactured graph (top), and extend the pattern to the left as I have done below, it implies that before 1993 the forcing actually flips phase and becomes negative.
This is surely impossible, yet such pablum is accepted unquestioningly, blindly, by Team Consensus members like David Appell .
|Negative CO2 "forcing" before 1993?! What a joke.|
Whatever trick they used to manufacture the upward trend in (alleged) CO2 forcing, it also distorted the CO2 measurement, doubling its 12-month seasonal amplitude as to render it laughable. How does CO2 achieve negative forcing?
How they manufactured such a rising trend out of a non-trend in the raw data I don't know. I guess that's the subject of the paper, which I haven't found a non-paywalled copy of yet, so I haven't read.
But few things can still be gleaned from the supplementary material and graphs that are available free . (For a topic that supposedly humanities "greatest moral challenge" these climate papers are remarkably well hidden behind paywalls.)
A salient comment from Joel Obrien (and a few other interesting comments on Feldman et al 2015) here:
I too strongly suspect they cherry-picked that time frame from their data set. Someone in their field needs to openly call them on it.Of course someone in the climate science field needs to call these AGW-scientists on it. I, and others non-climate scientists, don't have the time or resources to study all this climate stuff all day like they do. It's supposed to be the job of paid climate scientists to study this stuff and come up with objective conclusions.
But agenda-driven scientists don't do objective study. They're frauds who only look for data that supports their pre-determined narrative of climate doom, and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
The daily measurements of upwelling and downwelling longwave radiation etc show so much variation, teasing a 0.2W/m2 trend out that's alleged to be from CO2 is just fraud.
|Daily variations are huge. Try getting a trend out of that! Only the frauds of climate seance can do it.|
This could easily have been avoided by offsetting the data, or by making one graph have transparency so you can see the other, which they've actually done on the graph at the top (which comes from the video) – so they know how to do it, they just choose not to:
|A scurrilous AGW trick from Left-ideologues who pretend to do science|
Most graphs are taken at the Southern Great Plains at or near Lamont, Oklahoma . But some are from North Slope Alaska and Tropical West Pacific.
Not all x-axes have convenient units, but basically most graphs are of the last 15 years or so up until October 2015.
You can type the code, such as "sgpq1longrad1990...1998" into the ARM search page to see what abbreviation means. Here are a few abbreviations as examples:
SGP Southern Great Plains
NSA North Slope Alaska
TWP Tropical West Pacific
los Line Of Sight