Correcting this error did not bring the early thermometers completely in line with proxies — up to 0.9 F of
additional warm bias might still persist from other sources, such as differences in the thermometers or in how people read them — «but I think we are nearer to the truth,» said Böhm in 2012.
Putting
these additional warming biases (conservative estimates) into context like you have done with the ones above (Corrections to the «Observed» Record, water vapor and black soot) would be incredibly helpful and informative.
Not exact matches
Psychologists studying climate communication make two
additional (and related) points about why the
warming - snow link is going to be exceedingly difficult for much of the public to accept: 1) people's confirmation
biases lead them to pay skewed attention to weather events, in such a way as to confirm their preexisting beliefs about climate change (see p. 4 of this report); 2) people have mental models of «global
warming» that tend to rule out wintry impacts.
Option C won't make it go away either because simulations are so massaged by confirmation
bias that many reasonable people, understanding this, may tentitively choose option A. On the other hand, the problem of catastrophic global
warming may well go away with
additional data.
Small
additional biases, discussed above, from changes in sea ice and differences in
warming rates of SST and air just above the open ocean (which it appears the Cowtan and Way dataset does not adjust for) might push up the
bias marginally.