Only people who don't actually read scientific papers would be impressed by the rock analyst's attempt to look like an expert in climate.
Well first off, unlike you, I have never suggested I am an expert in climate. I am, however, an earth scientist and have taught at university and at the first year level where basic climate physics are dealt with. I am not an expert but I have the science background, I do know how to do research and I do know that when that research is published after peer review and there is no formal Discussion published in that journal then the original paper is likely a valid assessment. I have, out of interest, spent the last decade and a half studying various aspects of climate science out of interest. I am familiar with the literature and open to opposing views if backed up with something other than opinion.
You, on the other hand are arguing that these published scientists are all wrong. I have a number of papers outside of the ones I mentioned that speak to the same greening effect so I suspect you have a lot of work to do. Please show us the research that refutes that. Arguing that satellite data is suspect and then pointing to surface data that has been shown to be both inaccurate and imprecise is a classic approach by people who are familiar with the climate arguments but are not scientists. Of course there is uncertainty with satellite measurements but if you bothered to read the papers you would see they did address them. I have a difficult time taking you to be an expert in this field given the tirade you just made about "deniers". This has no place in science and that tirade pretty much puts you in a very bad light. Why should we all take you as the authority here? Please post the relevant papers and we can discuss as scientists normally would.
I am not going to take any 14% trend estimate from satellite data seriously. The error bars are larger than this even for a set of measurements at a given time. If you try to put error bars on the trend spanning several instruments you are looking at errors over 30%. Satellites are not so bad for bulk emission measurements such as those that can be used to infer temperature. But for refined products such as the trend of vegetation colour in scene pixels it is another ball game.
fine, post the references to the literature that show this to be the case, stating errors are over 30% requires a reference to my mind. Better yet point to where in those publications I posted that the error bars overwhelm the signal.
If the rock analyst is going to poop on climate models and their submodels (e.g. for cloud processes) as being unreliable and uncertain, I can throw his excrement right back at him and argue that the satellite measurement papers he invokes above are just as uncertain. In fact, they are even more uncertain.
well first off my discussion about the uncertainties with respect to how clouds were handled was base on a quote from the IPCC AR5 research section and a number of papers which I am more than willing to point to if needed. It is not my opinion, it is the opinion of all the scientists who contributed to that chapter and those papers. The difference is you are talking about errors with respect to satellite measurements whereas they are talking about uncertainties about processes with respect to clouds. Completely different aspects and completely unrelated.
Also I need to point out the satellite studies were done as reference research, ie. comparing to older studies. Given the same errors present in each vintage of study the empirical observations are valid without concern over error bars (unless you can establish measurement error has declined between the periods).
