Another example: Dave again responds to a previous line of questioning about comparing temps from the MWP and now with 3 graphs that don't include the MWP for comparison.
Sample sizes need to be thirty or greater to be valid. Preferably greater. Stating that the current CO2 levels are higher than the last 2.1 million years (or 800,000 years) is looking at the bulk of the situation. You're accusing me of cherry picking, which I have not done. Repetition is not an argument. Show where the IPCC changed its stance. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf Okay, this is just getting embarrassing. Why do you guys need to quote everyone from astrophysicists, to engineers and now economists rather than climatologists? There were warmer temperatures in Europe, not globally as I've already posted multiple times. False, and baloney. It doesn't take more than ten seconds to look at the graph of global temperatures or the Keeling curve to realize that's not true. More baloney. Tree rings as far away as Mongolia support the same conclusions. (Ignoring bore holes, ice cores, coral records, etc. etc. etc.) I must be very naive to believe the actual numbers and not astrophysicsts and economists.
It's temp dependent Dave. At higher air temps - from increased solar activity - water vapor concentrations will be higher. Only by artificially increasing RH%, as in the experiment, does this hold true. Your assertion means nothing.
Another example: The MWP and the tropics/Tasmania warming were at the same time. Dave says that the MWP is northern hemisphere only and means nothing. And that the tropics/Taz aren't either. True, but a rational person would look at the time line and notice that they're happening at the same time. IOW, it's global. Dave doesn't get this.
Why are only climatologists allowed to comment? If someone is schooled in say, economics, and uses statistics every day in their field, and sees where the statistics given isn't good methodology, why are they NOT allowed to comment on the statistical relavence of a study? What you're doing is called poisoning the well. And it's dishonest.
If you would have actually read the article, you would have read that the only way that they could get the "hockey stick" graph was by heavily weighting anomolies. When correct methodology was used, the hockey stick disappeared. The guy that did the original work refuses to this day to release his computer code used to get his graph. And yet, you're not suspicious at all, eh?
Then you violated your own rule by quoting how many US troops are in UN assignments, rather than reflecting what they've done since the UN's inception. Dishonest representation. Wotta surprise
When asked about temps today vs temps during the MWP, you say "it's been warming up" and use graphs that don't include that time period to make your point. That's cherry picking. Which makes you dishonest about your cherry picking.
Yes, it is temperature dependent, as I've already written. However, solar activity is only one factor that can increase temperature (and since we're at a solar minimum we can see that something else is causing it, so please, stop grasping for the lifebuoy of solar activity.)