a) Readiing comprehension. They released the code on July 8th in response to all the controversy. I've pointed that out to you at least twice now.
So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?
My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement:
I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.
Deal?
Also, I hate to speak out of school but there is no such controversy. There is chatter on the usual blogs, but this doesn't amount to controversy - bloggers don't get a seat at the science table. To do that, you need to use science, which, I have to say, I see is sorely lacking in both your arguments and the arguments of your peers and betters. Like as not, the scientific community probably didn't even notice these paranoid rantings.
You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.
b) You seem intellectually dishonest and childish, who cares so much about "winning" a meaningless debate you can't admit when you're clearly wrong. But that's a personal statement, and why start getting personal? If you think I am "angry", you are projecting.
This is not a debate. You are trying to convince me that your science (as yet unreferenced) is correct, and the 150 years of climate research which contradicts your assertions is wrong (for reasons, somehow, you have yet to begin explaining). Of course I know a deal about climate science (who would enter a discussion such as this if they were ignorant? Only a moron would do that!) , but I'm not under any obligation to dissemble the things I know or correct your ignorance should it raise it's head. Your ignorance it's your concern, not mine.
Again, the code was kept private until July 8th.
Let's test this assertion directly:
What model code NOAA publish on July 8th 2014?
Where did they publish this code?
Which climate model was the code written for?
You are saying the reason that I couldn't find the unreleased code is because of my own ignorance. It should be easy for you to substantiate that accusation. You won't because you can't.
Your feelings about my motivations are of no consequence.
Maybe you can answer this: What evidence could I provide that would prove that the code hadn't been released prior to July?
This is your problem. You made the assertion, you prove it.
c) Clearly you do not know what "statistical significance" means.
Not for you to judge, I'm afraid.
Why do you show me a graph purporting to debunk my claim of no trend for the last 17 years that uses a trend-line that starts in 1950?
You can't read a graph, even when the graph includes all of the timeline you need? I guess that answers my question. You can't explain the continued warming post 1996, nor the fact that the period 1997-2013 was warmer than the period 1982-1996.
Here is what the trend looks like from 1997, using various datasets, including your GISS temps. [woodfortrees.org]
Why does this dataset start at 1997?
Do you even know how to formulate the required data to justify your assertion there has been no warming for 17 years?
You seem to be pinning your hopes on your readers not exercising any reading comprehension. Your hope is vain.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
Tut Tut Tut. Naughty naughty!
You said:I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. You said that here. Don't lie, and especially don't tell stupid lies. It's very unbecoming and makes us doubt all of your OTHER unevidenced assertions.
b) I was not angry,
You seem angry.
but I disagreed with their [NOAA's] decision to keep the information private.
You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.
You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
I've repeatedly noted that the "science" in question, which is the science behind your assertions, is unevidenced and therefore not science. Your allegation is frankly bizarre.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade.
Tut Tut Tut.
Naughty Naughty!
You said there has been no warming for the last 17 years.
I suspect you don't even know what HADCRUT4 is. Unfortunately for you, I do. And unfortunately for your argument, the actual temperature data is readily available, and your argument, such as it is, has already been repeatedly debunked - heck, I've debunked it myself.
Please indicate on this graph of temperatures how there has been no warming from 1996-2014 (compared to the previous 14 years 1982-1996).
Well, be sure to record on your blog your most recent discoveries
(a) That there is in fact a methodology underpinning the collation of of temperature data (contrary to your previous statements)
(b) That you cannot describe any issue with NOAAs climate methodologies , but you are angry that NOAA did not see fit to share their methodology with you personally so that you wouldn't be forced to google for it. Perhaps if you speak eloquently concerning your anger, a helpful poster will give you some hints on better ways to channel your anger.
(c) Be sure also to include your theory on how the scientific community actually thinks that warming ceased 17 years ago, based on a single word you plucked from a single article in nature, and in contrast to what the actual temperature data tells us. I'm sure that the scorn expressed by various parties is really just respect (in disguise) at your undoubted brilliance,
How many of the people (denialists) who post in climate change related articles is actually you? You accidently logged in using a different account, I'm wondering - how many accounts would you manage for a slip up like that to occur? How many posts per day?
Looks to me like you accidently logged in using one of your other fake accounts. Are you paid to shill for just oil companies or are you generally for hire?
Well, feel free to not use any of the things developed from scientific advances. I hear that caves are comfortable year round, and herbs and grasses picked from the mountainside can make a fine salad!
(a) Did you, or did you not say "I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. "
(b) Did you, or did you not, say: "It appears the methodology and code have [...] been made available"
(c) Did you, or did you not, say (a), and then (b), thus retracting statement (a) by statement (b).
And if I turn you fine sounding (if empty) rhetoric upside down and look at it's dirty underbelly I see written: "I don't care what the science says, I'm scared of change so I don't want to do anything", which is of course, the argument that underpins denialism. There has been an ongoing attempt by a sub-section of that group an attempt to calve off from the main and establish a new rhetoric "a plague on both your houses" and leave behind the old standards "there has been no warming for 15 years", "models got it wrong", "CO2 is good for plants", "It's the sun!" , "It's the Moon!", "It's Zeus!" etc, the use of which now guarantees only derisive laughter.
None of these arguments, new or old (the new one, of course, being there to blame SCIENCE for being right all along), are the actual reason why no action is being taken. The reason is that governments, and their sponsors (in this case, established elements of the fossil fuel industry and power generation industry) don't want to change.
How about we just use nuclear power for most cases because it's more efficient, safer, etc.?
How about we just use electric cars for most cases because they're simpler, more efficient, etc.?
How about we just stop using coal because it's fucking terrible all around?
If the obvious issue of climate change can't overcome the inertia (that is, the supporters of those technologies refuse to change even to the point that their refusal is endangering millions of lives and impoverishing billions yet to come), then minor, less justifiable reasons will not get them to change.
Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?
Errr. A few dozen bloggers and paid shills on the internet can't actually convert an established scientific theory from a fact into a fictional bogeyman. Sorry, but we don't live in a world of magic. This video summarises the actual debate better than anything I have seen for a while.
The reason is there is virtually no-one else. Judith Curry, albeit better trained, is just a rhetorical shell over a person who actually thinks the climate is warming, she's useless to that cause. Roy Spencer is under a cloud (after the 'lensing' incident), Monkton is a clown , Richard Muller changed his mind and now accepts the consensus opinion, as (to a large extent) has Bjorn Lomberg.
Only the weatherman blogger fights on, bravely upheld by his salary from the Heartland institute.
There's no such thing as evidence regarding the future.
So, in fact, you have no idea what the impacts of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere might be? (Ahem) Quelle surprise.
Then of course, as a consequence your baseless and un-evidenced assertions that 150 years of climate science must be wrong because because o! please I pinky swear! sounds about as believable as a guy who claims that there are no owls, that owls are a conspiracy theory established by biologists in days of yore to milk money from the citizenry. I see no reason for me to believe it. Can you provide a single, reason for me to believe this fairytale?
So in fact, the feedback could be greater than the models predict, since (you baselessly allege) the model predictions are uncertain.
Thanks for validating the need for urgent action.
If the models underestimate the feedback, then, short of a holocaust (which I presume you aren't openly advocating) there's no significant action anyone could take. We could do insignificant things for the sake of "doing something", but the benefits would be tiny, even if the costs were huge.
Well, it's your theory. Feel free to curl up and die at the hopelessness of it if you so desire. None of which will impact what the rest of us plan to do, of course.
If the models are right, for example, Germany's pioneering $110 Billion energy program will delay the expected temperature increase in the year 2100 by 37 hours [weeklystandard.com].
I don't read conspiracy blogs penned by lunatics.
The relative stability of the climate, despite numerous past disruptions, argues against strong positive feedback.
Relatively stability compared to what? Other versions of the earth?
Compared to a climate that gets disrupted a little by some warming event or some additional carbon in the atmosphere, then the strong positive feedback makes it warmer and warmer and warmer until it's too hot to live. If this had happened, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. The Earth's climate is more stable, relatively, than this.
warmer and warmer and warmer until it's too hot to live?
So, based on the current models of feedback, what precise percentage atmospheric CO2 concentration is required to trigger this "runaway" feedback? What are the feedbacks in question?
It's not my job to educate you on these things, but obviously feedback mechanisms are generally limited: ice reflects sunlight, so melting the ice creates a positive feedback, but there is no more ice to melt the feedback ceases. Melting permafrost triggers the clathrate gun, punching methane into the system - but once all the methane trapped in the permafrost has escapes into the atmosphere, feedback from the escaping methane ceases.
I say 'generally' because of course, you would not have entered into this conversation without a detailed knowledge of what feedback mechanisms can trigger runaway warming, having modelled these yourself in detail.
So what are these 'runaway' mechanisms?
If there were strong positive feedback, past disruptions would have caused the climate to get apocalyptically hot
No it wouldn't.
Where's your evidence?
Science says so. You don't get to question it, unless you come armed with BETTER science.
Are you saying that scientific claims should be assumed correct until proven wrong?
No, you haven't convinced me that your claim ("climate change is a time travelling zombie conspiracy!") is correct. I won't be convinced until you provide your evidence.
The fact is, the models made predictions, and those predictions have failed.
Baseless assertion.
I don't need to prove the models wrong.
Yes you do. You claimed they ("the models") have failed - in other thread where this claim was discussed in detail you showed a remarkable propensity for avoiding any verifiable, workable definition of failure, can't name the models you claim have failed, can't reference a published paper detailing the failure, can't elaborate on whether you mean a suite of models or a class of models, constantly demonstrate clear ignorance of the purpose of models, their usage, bounds.
If you are the expert on model that you claim to be, then by all means, produce a model that is more accurate and publish it. If sensitivity is lower than the climate record shows, then by all means, publish a paper that better defines the sensitivity and matches the climate record. If you are not prepared and not skilled or intelligent enough to do that, then too bad. You don't get to tell us whether the models are successful or not.
I gave you the data-sets; I showed you the article from the journal Nature; I backed up my claims with evidence.
You're delusional. Here's what you actually gave me:
1. A link to a nature article which contradicts your central claims
2. A link to the blog of a conspiracy theorist
3. A link to Phil Jone's biography on wikipedia.
With these links you plan to overturn 150 years of climate research.
Call me skeptical, but I'm struggling to believe a word of it.
Average temperatures will probably rise a very small amount. CO2 causes a small increase.
That's speculation, not evidence. I said evidence.
The computer models presume this small amount will be multiplied several times over by strong positive feedback. But the feedback amount and direction has yet to be empirically proven.
So in fact, the feedback could be greater than the models predict, since (you baselessly allege) the model predictions are uncertain.
Thanks for validating the need for urgent action.
The relative stability of the climate, despite numerous past disruptions, argues against strong positive feedback.
Relatively stability compared to what? Other versions of the earth?
If there were strong positive feedback, past disruptions would have caused the climate to get apocalyptically hot
No it wouldn't. You have no idea what you are talking about. DNRF.
Again, I am not making any claims about the temperature adjustments.
Righto then. You can't - or won't - explain what is supposedly wrong with their methodology, then what are you expecting to achieve?
Do you have a feeling that something isn't right with it?
Let me be clear we don't care. Unless you can prove that there is a problem with the methodology you might as well be claiming that there are no owls. Your allegations amount to nonsensical babbling. Go away, do some research, and only come back when you have something non-ludicrous to say about climate change.
So you're saying that it's up to me to prove why their methodology is incorrect,
That's right.
when they have yet to provide the proof or proofs as to why the altering of methodology is correct.
They don't need to justify their methodology to every ignorant moron who thinks they are qualified because they edit a blog, any more than I need to prove the existence of owls to owl deniers.
But I'm apparently the ignorant one.
It's very apparent, yes.
Wrong, it's not my place to convince you that the science is wrong.
Very well then - I, and the vast majority of the scientific community, and humanity with us, will continue to accept the 150 odd years of climate research behind AGW, and push for mitigation until governments are forced into action. And you can sit quietly, or continue to scream about conspiracies and other delusion rantings like a homeless guy off his meds.
It's up to them to prove that the adjustments are justified with proofs, along with this they're required to give an indepth explanation as to why they believed that such adjustments were necessary, as well as plotting out trends over the period sample.
Nobody cares about your unproven (and obviously unprovable) assertions, anymore than we care about people who have doubts about the relative size of 15 versus 5, or the existence of owls. Your delusions are your problem.
Feel free to offer whatever evidence you have for your theory (which put simply, states: anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases defy the laws of thermodynamics, whereas pre-industrial traces of those same gases do not). Publish this work for peer review.
Nothing about the future can be proven until it happens and you measure it. Proof isn't the standard for discussions about predictions from computer models.
And yet you lot constantly assure us that the temperature will not continue to rise because of the increased concentrations of CO2, and apparently this prediction is so obvious that you needn't offer any explanation or proof or evidence and any criticism of your methodology is met with cries of conspiracy and dishonesty.
Have you the faintest notion of how weak your argument sounds? "Nobody can predict the future - except me of course"
You don't get to decide where the burden of proof lies. Nobody cares if you don't "believe In" climate change.
You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.
Your moronic ignorance and bizarre paranoia is not impressive and is not a convincing argument.
I actually don't know if there is anything wrong with the adjustments.
This is probably something you should have decided upon before implying there was a problem with the adjustments.
I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used.
No it isn't. They don't owe you an explanation, you owe us an explanation. You implied there was something wrong with the adjustments made, now you think because you say there is a problem, NOAA should hop to it and consolidate the methodologies used into a pamphlet for you to read and satisfy yourself that all is above board. That is, to be frank, moronic. NOAA is not there to answer the every whim of ignoramuses. Do your research, find out what the correct method of adjustment should be, and if the existing results are wrong publish a paper on it.
Otherwise "I don't know" is not an argument that will convince anyone that that there is a problem with the methodology.
Sure it does. At least to those who aren't sure the earth is round.
You imply that round earthers bear some responsibility for the ignorance and stupidity of flat earthers. That is a complete nonsense. If people are stupid, then calling them stupid is merely an accurate diagnosis. If they are deliberately choosing, through ego or fear, to not accept something obvious, then they, and they alone are responsible for that choice.
Climate scientists are not responsible for the small group of people who choose to remain ignorant of the facts in order to preserve the denialist myth. They themselves are responsible. If they get their way and delay action on climate change, and the worst that happens is that some people on the internet call them a nasty name, they should count themselves as lucky. Delays in taking action will wipe trillions off the world GDP. Someone, somewhere will one day ask if we should recoup that money from the people responsible for the delay.
Slashdot Mirror
a) Readiing comprehension. They released the code on July 8th in response to all the controversy. I've pointed that out to you at least twice now.
So, let's be clear. You are saying that if I look, I will not find a methodology for the homogenisation of longitudinal temperature data (i.e. USHCN v2.0 or v2.5 and GHCN) published prior to July 8th 2014?
My time is important. What should be my motivation for spending the time to look: Let's say, if I find a methodology, you will issue the following statement: I made remarks impugning the scientific methodology underpinning datasets published by NOAA which, upon investigation, turned out to be false.
Deal?
Also, I hate to speak out of school but there is no such controversy. There is chatter on the usual blogs, but this doesn't amount to controversy - bloggers don't get a seat at the science table. To do that, you need to use science, which, I have to say, I see is sorely lacking in both your arguments and the arguments of your peers and betters. Like as not, the scientific community probably didn't even notice these paranoid rantings.
You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.
b) You seem intellectually dishonest and childish, who cares so much about "winning" a meaningless debate you can't admit when you're clearly wrong. But that's a personal statement, and why start getting personal? If you think I am "angry", you are projecting.
This is not a debate. You are trying to convince me that your science (as yet unreferenced) is correct, and the 150 years of climate research which contradicts your assertions is wrong (for reasons, somehow, you have yet to begin explaining). Of course I know a deal about climate science (who would enter a discussion such as this if they were ignorant? Only a moron would do that!) , but I'm not under any obligation to dissemble the things I know or correct your ignorance should it raise it's head. Your ignorance it's your concern, not mine.
Again, the code was kept private until July 8th.
Let's test this assertion directly:
What model code NOAA publish on July 8th 2014?
Where did they publish this code?
Which climate model was the code written for?
You are saying the reason that I couldn't find the unreleased code is because of my own ignorance. It should be easy for you to substantiate that accusation. You won't because you can't.
Your feelings about my motivations are of no consequence.
Maybe you can answer this: What evidence could I provide that would prove that the code hadn't been released prior to July?
This is your problem. You made the assertion, you prove it.
c) Clearly you do not know what "statistical significance" means.
Not for you to judge, I'm afraid.
Why do you show me a graph purporting to debunk my claim of no trend for the last 17 years that uses a trend-line that starts in 1950?
You can't read a graph, even when the graph includes all of the timeline you need? I guess that answers my question. You can't explain the continued warming post 1996, nor the fact that the period 1997-2013 was warmer than the period 1982-1996.
Here is what the trend looks like from 1997, using various datasets, including your GISS temps. [woodfortrees.org]
Why does this dataset start at 1997?
Do you even know how to formulate the required data to justify your assertion there has been no warming for 17 years?
The average temperature increas
Reading comprehension is important.
You seem to be pinning your hopes on your readers not exercising any reading comprehension. Your hope is vain.
a) I never said there wasn't a methodology, just that they hadn't released it at the time. You seem to be deluding yourself into believing that the code was always publicly available.
Tut Tut Tut. Naughty naughty!
You said:I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used. So far they have not been forthcoming. I would like to be able to scrutinize their work, but I can't. I would like to try to repeat their work, but I can't. You said that here. Don't lie, and especially don't tell stupid lies. It's very unbecoming and makes us doubt all of your OTHER unevidenced assertions.
b) I was not angry,
You seem angry.
but I disagreed with their [NOAA's] decision to keep the information private.
You blame others for your own ignorance. In fact, your ignorance of the function and efficacy of climate models, and the methodology behind them, is entirely your fault, and your affair. You assertion that NOAA kept some methodology (for what? when? why?) private is entirely unevidenced.
You apparently see nothing wrong with keeping scientific data hidden away from prying eyes.
I've repeatedly noted that the "science" in question, which is the science behind your assertions, is unevidenced and therefore not science. Your allegation is frankly bizarre.
c) Interesting that you still deny the recent lack of warming. The HADCRUT4 warming trend since 1997 is a statistically insignificant 5 one-hundredths of a degree per decade.
Tut Tut Tut.
Naughty Naughty!
You said there has been no warming for the last 17 years.
I suspect you don't even know what HADCRUT4 is. Unfortunately for you, I do. And unfortunately for your argument, the actual temperature data is readily available, and your argument, such as it is, has already been repeatedly debunked - heck, I've debunked it myself.
Please indicate on this graph of temperatures how there has been no warming from 1996-2014 (compared to the previous 14 years 1982-1996).
(a) That there is in fact a methodology underpinning the collation of of temperature data (contrary to your previous statements)
(b) That you cannot describe any issue with NOAAs climate methodologies , but you are angry that NOAA did not see fit to share their methodology with you personally so that you wouldn't be forced to google for it. Perhaps if you speak eloquently concerning your anger, a helpful poster will give you some hints on better ways to channel your anger.
(c) Be sure also to include your theory on how the scientific community actually thinks that warming ceased 17 years ago, based on a single word you plucked from a single article in nature, and in contrast to what the actual temperature data tells us. I'm sure that the scorn expressed by various parties is really just respect (in disguise) at your undoubted brilliance,
How many of the people (denialists) who post in climate change related articles is actually you? You accidently logged in using a different account, I'm wondering - how many accounts would you manage for a slip up like that to occur? How many posts per day?
Looks to me like you accidently logged in using one of your other fake accounts. Are you paid to shill for just oil companies or are you generally for hire?
Do you use 2 or more accounts to game Slashdot's moderation system?
Well, feel free to not use any of the things developed from scientific advances. I hear that caves are comfortable year round, and herbs and grasses picked from the mountainside can make a fine salad!
(b) Did you, or did you not, say: "It appears the methodology and code have [...] been made available"
(c) Did you, or did you not, say (a), and then (b), thus retracting statement (a) by statement (b).
Answers parts a,b AND c.
I never made any allegations. I don't know if there is anything wrong with their methodology.
Safe then for me to assume that there is no problem with their methodology since nobody, to my knowledge, has described any problems with it.
None of these arguments, new or old (the new one, of course, being there to blame SCIENCE for being right all along), are the actual reason why no action is being taken. The reason is that governments, and their sponsors (in this case, established elements of the fossil fuel industry and power generation industry) don't want to change.
How about we just use nuclear power for most cases because it's more efficient, safer, etc.?
How about we just use electric cars for most cases because they're simpler, more efficient, etc.?
How about we just stop using coal because it's fucking terrible all around?
If the obvious issue of climate change can't overcome the inertia (that is, the supporters of those technologies refuse to change even to the point that their refusal is endangering millions of lives and impoverishing billions yet to come), then minor, less justifiable reasons will not get them to change.
Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?
Errr. A few dozen bloggers and paid shills on the internet can't actually convert an established scientific theory from a fact into a fictional bogeyman. Sorry, but we don't live in a world of magic. This video summarises the actual debate better than anything I have seen for a while.
Why does this guy have so many dedicated fans?
The reason is there is virtually no-one else. Judith Curry, albeit better trained, is just a rhetorical shell over a person who actually thinks the climate is warming, she's useless to that cause. Roy Spencer is under a cloud (after the 'lensing' incident), Monkton is a clown , Richard Muller changed his mind and now accepts the consensus opinion, as (to a large extent) has Bjorn Lomberg.
Only the weatherman blogger fights on, bravely upheld by his salary from the Heartland institute.
There's no such thing as evidence regarding the future.
So, in fact, you have no idea what the impacts of dumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere might be? (Ahem) Quelle surprise.
Then of course, as a consequence your baseless and un-evidenced assertions that 150 years of climate science must be wrong because because o! please I pinky swear! sounds about as believable as a guy who claims that there are no owls, that owls are a conspiracy theory established by biologists in days of yore to milk money from the citizenry. I see no reason for me to believe it. Can you provide a single, reason for me to believe this fairytale?
So in fact, the feedback could be greater than the models predict, since (you baselessly allege) the model predictions are uncertain. Thanks for validating the need for urgent action.
If the models underestimate the feedback, then, short of a holocaust (which I presume you aren't openly advocating) there's no significant action anyone could take. We could do insignificant things for the sake of "doing something", but the benefits would be tiny, even if the costs were huge.
Well, it's your theory. Feel free to curl up and die at the hopelessness of it if you so desire. None of which will impact what the rest of us plan to do, of course.
If the models are right, for example, Germany's pioneering $110 Billion energy program will delay the expected temperature increase in the year 2100 by 37 hours [weeklystandard.com].
I don't read conspiracy blogs penned by lunatics.
The relative stability of the climate, despite numerous past disruptions, argues against strong positive feedback.
Relatively stability compared to what? Other versions of the earth?
Compared to a climate that gets disrupted a little by some warming event or some additional carbon in the atmosphere, then the strong positive feedback makes it warmer and warmer and warmer until it's too hot to live. If this had happened, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. The Earth's climate is more stable, relatively, than this.
warmer and warmer and warmer until it's too hot to live?
So, based on the current models of feedback, what precise percentage atmospheric CO2 concentration is required to trigger this "runaway" feedback? What are the feedbacks in question?
It's not my job to educate you on these things, but obviously feedback mechanisms are generally limited: ice reflects sunlight, so melting the ice creates a positive feedback, but there is no more ice to melt the feedback ceases. Melting permafrost triggers the clathrate gun, punching methane into the system - but once all the methane trapped in the permafrost has escapes into the atmosphere, feedback from the escaping methane ceases.
I say 'generally' because of course, you would not have entered into this conversation without a detailed knowledge of what feedback mechanisms can trigger runaway warming, having modelled these yourself in detail.
So what are these 'runaway' mechanisms?
If there were strong positive feedback, past disruptions would have caused the climate to get apocalyptically hot
No it wouldn't.
Where's your evidence?
Science says so. You don't get to question it, unless you come armed with BETTER science.
Yes, on your part, since you claimed there was no published methodology, and have now - apparently - found it.
Are you saying that scientific claims should be assumed correct until proven wrong?
No, you haven't convinced me that your claim ("climate change is a time travelling zombie conspiracy!") is correct. I won't be convinced until you provide your evidence.
The fact is, the models made predictions, and those predictions have failed.
Baseless assertion.
I don't need to prove the models wrong.
Yes you do. You claimed they ("the models") have failed - in other thread where this claim was discussed in detail you showed a remarkable propensity for avoiding any verifiable, workable definition of failure, can't name the models you claim have failed, can't reference a published paper detailing the failure, can't elaborate on whether you mean a suite of models or a class of models, constantly demonstrate clear ignorance of the purpose of models, their usage, bounds.
If you are the expert on model that you claim to be, then by all means, produce a model that is more accurate and publish it. If sensitivity is lower than the climate record shows, then by all means, publish a paper that better defines the sensitivity and matches the climate record. If you are not prepared and not skilled or intelligent enough to do that, then too bad. You don't get to tell us whether the models are successful or not.
I gave you the data-sets; I showed you the article from the journal Nature; I backed up my claims with evidence.
You're delusional. Here's what you actually gave me:
1. A link to a nature article which contradicts your central claims
2. A link to the blog of a conspiracy theorist
3. A link to Phil Jone's biography on wikipedia.
With these links you plan to overturn 150 years of climate research.
Call me skeptical, but I'm struggling to believe a word of it.
Average temperatures will probably rise a very small amount. CO2 causes a small increase.
That's speculation, not evidence. I said evidence.
The computer models presume this small amount will be multiplied several times over by strong positive feedback. But the feedback amount and direction has yet to be empirically proven.
So in fact, the feedback could be greater than the models predict, since (you baselessly allege) the model predictions are uncertain.
Thanks for validating the need for urgent action.
The relative stability of the climate, despite numerous past disruptions, argues against strong positive feedback.
Relatively stability compared to what? Other versions of the earth?
If there were strong positive feedback, past disruptions would have caused the climate to get apocalyptically hot
No it wouldn't. You have no idea what you are talking about. DNRF.
Again, I am not making any claims about the temperature adjustments.
Righto then. You can't - or won't - explain what is supposedly wrong with their methodology, then what are you expecting to achieve?
Do you have a feeling that something isn't right with it?
Let me be clear we don't care. Unless you can prove that there is a problem with the methodology you might as well be claiming that there are no owls. Your allegations amount to nonsensical babbling. Go away, do some research, and only come back when you have something non-ludicrous to say about climate change.
So you're saying that it's up to me to prove why their methodology is incorrect,
That's right.
when they have yet to provide the proof or proofs as to why the altering of methodology is correct.
They don't need to justify their methodology to every ignorant moron who thinks they are qualified because they edit a blog, any more than I need to prove the existence of owls to owl deniers.
But I'm apparently the ignorant one.
It's very apparent, yes.
Wrong, it's not my place to convince you that the science is wrong.
Very well then - I, and the vast majority of the scientific community, and humanity with us, will continue to accept the 150 odd years of climate research behind AGW, and push for mitigation until governments are forced into action. And you can sit quietly, or continue to scream about conspiracies and other delusion rantings like a homeless guy off his meds.
It's up to them to prove that the adjustments are justified with proofs, along with this they're required to give an indepth explanation as to why they believed that such adjustments were necessary, as well as plotting out trends over the period sample.
Nobody cares about your unproven (and obviously unprovable) assertions, anymore than we care about people who have doubts about the relative size of 15 versus 5, or the existence of owls. Your delusions are your problem.
Err... Congratulations?
So you are saying science should be done in secret.
Comprehension fail on your part - your problem.
Being able to reproduce and verify results is important.
We wait with bated breath for you to justify your assertions with something reproducible.
Is it a problem if there is no statistical warming for 17 years? Why is that a problem?
Which 17 years are you referring to? Which datasets are you referring to?
At what point is this theory falsifiable? How long do we have to wait?
Why are you asking me? It's your assertion, you prove it
Should models be falsifiable?
Remember it's YOUR job to convince us that the science is wrong.
Nothing about the future can be proven until it happens and you measure it. Proof isn't the standard for discussions about predictions from computer models.
And yet you lot constantly assure us that the temperature will not continue to rise because of the increased concentrations of CO2, and apparently this prediction is so obvious that you needn't offer any explanation or proof or evidence and any criticism of your methodology is met with cries of conspiracy and dishonesty.
Have you the faintest notion of how weak your argument sounds? "Nobody can predict the future - except me of course"
You're seeking to overturn the world's economic system and replace it with government control. That extreme a change requires strong proof, and it's just not there.
Your moronic ignorance and bizarre paranoia is not impressive and is not a convincing argument.
I actually don't know if there is anything wrong with the adjustments.
This is probably something you should have decided upon before implying there was a problem with the adjustments.
I'd like to know more, but it's up to the NOAA to explain what adjustments were made, why they were made, and what algorithms they used.
No it isn't. They don't owe you an explanation, you owe us an explanation. You implied there was something wrong with the adjustments made, now you think because you say there is a problem, NOAA should hop to it and consolidate the methodologies used into a pamphlet for you to read and satisfy yourself that all is above board. That is, to be frank, moronic. NOAA is not there to answer the every whim of ignoramuses. Do your research, find out what the correct method of adjustment should be, and if the existing results are wrong publish a paper on it.
Otherwise "I don't know" is not an argument that will convince anyone that that there is a problem with the methodology.
Sure it does. At least to those who aren't sure the earth is round.
You imply that round earthers bear some responsibility for the ignorance and stupidity of flat earthers. That is a complete nonsense. If people are stupid, then calling them stupid is merely an accurate diagnosis. If they are deliberately choosing, through ego or fear, to not accept something obvious, then they, and they alone are responsible for that choice.
Climate scientists are not responsible for the small group of people who choose to remain ignorant of the facts in order to preserve the denialist myth. They themselves are responsible. If they get their way and delay action on climate change, and the worst that happens is that some people on the internet call them a nasty name, they should count themselves as lucky. Delays in taking action will wipe trillions off the world GDP. Someone, somewhere will one day ask if we should recoup that money from the people responsible for the delay.