6 ms·

> But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses -- ones that, if con

> But all ten researchers, faced with the choice of what hypothesis to formulate and/or investigate, naturally chose high-impact hypotheses -- ones that, if confirmed, adjust past temperatures downward. You have to show this, you can't just assume it. For example, sea surface temperature adjustments are the opposite; in your words, a low-impact hypothesis that is nevertheless formulated and confirmed. http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html http://variable-variability.blogspot.de/2015/02/homogenizati...

kapitza 10y ago
That's a good point. On the other hand, the SST measurements are a lot lower impact (in terms of the number of times they're used in graphs that get into your newspaper) than air temperatures. Which may be not be logical. But humans aren't logical. For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. Finding the anthropogenic "signal" is a matter of number-massaging statistical wizardry, not at all unlike general circulation modeling. If we had a sample of about 20 independent planets we could experiment on, it'd be no sweat. But science is hard. There's no law of nature that says the definitive experiment actually has to be practical. The definition of science is "we know," not "this is the best we can do."
- woodchuck64 10y ago
  > For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. If by definitive, you mean 100%, then yes, else no. The IPCC distilled the consensus down to about 95% which is quite strong, by all means.
- newtohn 10y ago
  The SST adjustments have a larger impact on global temperatures than the land adjustments. Hence the global temperature has been adjusted higher relative to the raw data for the period before 1940.
  - kapitza 10y ago
    This is inconsistent with Hausfather's numbers, which you can see at the link above. Net global and US temps are both adjusted lower. I can't explain the discrepancy. Someone is being clever, that's for sure.
- woodchuck64 10y ago
  > What we don't understand (unless we decide GCMs are predictive and can be validated) is the impact of a given thermal forcing on planetary temperature. This is the "climate sensitivity." Unfortunately, this is the number we actually care about. This is false, we do understand this well enough to be sure CO2 is a significant problem for warming, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/?wpmp_tp=1 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co...
  - kapitza 10y ago
    The data quality in natural "experiments" like ice ages are as dubious as the GCMs, in the sense that you're simplifying very complex systems into single numbers. You'd never take this data set seriously next to the data you could get if you could mount a scratch planet and actually control the inputs.
    - Daishiman 10y ago
      Explain to me how ice core sampling is a dubious science, since apparently the experts are it have been using it quite effectively to do science in many other fields apart from climate research.
      - madaxe_again 10y ago
        It's good science - but you'll find that hard to tell amidst the astroturfing armies Thiel has installed here. An analogy would be to sit in a burning building, arguing that until we've seen the building completely burn down, we can't be sure it's on fire, so there's no point in turning off the gasoline hoses. All of those suggesting that scientists universally introduce bias are sorely lacking an understanding of the scientific method and process, and confuse their own compromised morals for those of others. Edit: the fact that this is being vigorously downvoted on a no longer front page story with few new comments only confirms my suspicions. Do you do it for money, the lulz, or do you have a genuine ideological connection to the idea of eradicating the majority of humans?
- 7952 10y ago
  It seems unlikely that the earths atmosphere would remain unaffected by human impacts.

kapitza 10y ago

That's a good point. On the other hand, the SST measurements are a lot lower impact (in terms of the number of times they're used in graphs that get into your newspaper) than air temperatures. Which may be not be logical. But humans aren't logical. For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. Finding the anthropogenic "signal" is a matter of number-massaging statistical wizardry, not at all unlike general circulation modeling. If we had a sample of about 20 independent planets we could experiment on, it'd be no sweat. But science is hard. There's no law of nature that says the definitive experiment actually has to be practical. The definition of science is "we know," not "this is the best we can do."

woodchuck64 10y ago
> For that matter, increases in air temperature in the 20th century by no means constitute definitive evidence of anthropogenic warming, since the planet has been warming for about four centuries. If by definitive, you mean 100%, then yes, else no. The IPCC distilled the consensus down to about 95% which is quite strong, by all means.
newtohn 10y ago
The SST adjustments have a larger impact on global temperatures than the land adjustments. Hence the global temperature has been adjusted higher relative to the raw data for the period before 1940.
- kapitza 10y ago
  This is inconsistent with Hausfather's numbers, which you can see at the link above. Net global and US temps are both adjusted lower. I can't explain the discrepancy. Someone is being clever, that's for sure.
woodchuck64 10y ago
> What we don't understand (unless we decide GCMs are predictive and can be validated) is the impact of a given thermal forcing on planetary temperature. This is the "climate sensitivity." Unfortunately, this is the number we actually care about. This is false, we do understand this well enough to be sure CO2 is a significant problem for warming, see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/?wpmp_tp=1 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co...
- kapitza 10y ago
  The data quality in natural "experiments" like ice ages are as dubious as the GCMs, in the sense that you're simplifying very complex systems into single numbers. You'd never take this data set seriously next to the data you could get if you could mount a scratch planet and actually control the inputs.
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    Explain to me how ice core sampling is a dubious science, since apparently the experts are it have been using it quite effectively to do science in many other fields apart from climate research.
    - madaxe_again 10y ago
      It's good science - but you'll find that hard to tell amidst the astroturfing armies Thiel has installed here. An analogy would be to sit in a burning building, arguing that until we've seen the building completely burn down, we can't be sure it's on fire, so there's no point in turning off the gasoline hoses. All of those suggesting that scientists universally introduce bias are sorely lacking an understanding of the scientific method and process, and confuse their own compromised morals for those of others. Edit: the fact that this is being vigorously downvoted on a no longer front page story with few new comments only confirms my suspicions. Do you do it for money, the lulz, or do you have a genuine ideological connection to the idea of eradicating the majority of humans?
7952 10y ago
It seems unlikely that the earths atmosphere would remain unaffected by human impacts.