We all know aTTP's MO, But I don't think he's one of the really bad guys. Sure he dishes it out, then complains and censors when he gets it back; much like most others on that side of the debate (Sou, I'm looking at you). But I don't think he's genuinely "nasty". For that one has to look at people like BBD, or Dana.

I think, like Sou, he's started his blog because of a feeling of impotence, wanting to debate but only on his terms. He's not interested in listening, or understanding, or being rational, but just to "explain" the "consensus" view to those beneath him. I imagine he thinks that by repeating it often enough the "deniers" will "finally understand". It's a black and white issue to him, shading of any sort would just distract from the "main point" of CO2 absorbing in the 15 micron band.

By creating this thread, you are feeding ATTP's vanity and fulfilling his opinions.

DNFTT - multiple sceptics are banned at ATP's website, you are also feeding his hypocrisy by his coming here, where this conversation would be deleted, snipped, etc there:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/03/29/the-big-questions/#comment-52271

Barry,

multiple sceptics are banned at ATP's website, you are also feeding his hypocrisy by his coming here, where this conversation would be deleted, snipped, etc there:

It might be hypocritical if I had banned the host of this site and then continued commenting here, but I haven't done so. Banning a few whiny, insincere people with over-inflated senses of their own self-importance, and then commenting elsewhere, is not hypocritical. What might be hypocritical is if I whined and complained if I was moderated, or banned. I haven't and I won't. This is not a complicated concept. I'd also have much more time for so-called skeptics if their attempts at being insulting actually made any sense. If you can't even get these simple concepts, it's no wonder you're so confused about something as complex as climate science. The least you could do was at least try to make sense.

Furthermore, what was your point in highlighting my comment? It was fascinating how a thread titled "A friendly general discussion with ATTP" degenerated into name-calling with a few comments. Not sure why me pointing that out reflects on me. It was precisely what I expected and precisely what happened. If people don't like me pointing out that they're rude and unpleasant, maybe they shouldn't then be rude and unpleasant. Again, not a complicated concept.

Of course, if you enjoy going around whining about me like a teenager trying to persuade their friends to no longer be friends with someone who's annoyed them, carry on. It's one reason why my single word description for the online climate debate is "infantile".

those whiny people, banned at ATTP, include:

Dr Paul Matthews,
Prof Richard Tol (or is he just selectively deleted, not 'banned')
and many others

ATTP - this discussion thread was started by an individual, and a few people comment, most readers of Bishop Hill don't know or care that it exists, yet you seem to think it reflects on all of Bishop Hill..

This is not about you, just your conduct, which seems troll like in the main blog..
rather than post on topic, you seem to delight ion stirring up the locals, with passive aggressive nonsense, willingness to twist, stir and misrepresent people,, and it always ends up about you..

I've seen this sort of behaviour, by many other people, for years..

Do you think, something is wrong on the internet, therefore it must be corrected..?

The public do not know you exist (nor I) neither do the public know Bishop Hill exists, nor Watts Up, or any sceptical or concerned blog.

ref this:

"Banning a few whiny, insincere people with over-inflated senses of their own self-importance, and then commenting elsewhere, is not hypocritical"

I think you are just projecting. LOL by Ken.. no more interactions from me..

It also seems he's unable to get ignored either, with multiple regulars lining up in turn to explain to him why he's being ignored. This is all stroking his ego, folks, he thinks he's "doing the good work" by distracting you away from the real war. Ignoring him is the only thing that will sting.

"This is not a complicated concept. I'd also have much more time for so-called skeptics if their attempts at being insulting actually made any sense."

You're South African aren't you?

Those of us over 40 who grew up in the UK might find this apt....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZjwCmJrnlY

From "A declaration of orthodoxy", 3 April, 2015:

Apr 3, 2015 at 11:27 AM | ...and Then There's Physics

"Given conservation of mass, this is virtually impossible."

Oh, God. Not the long discredited "mass balance" argument rearing its ugly head again.

The argument is based on static system analysis, which assumes implicitly that the Earth's CO2 regulatory system does not respond to the additional human input. No greening of the planet. No change in downwelling in the oceans. No change.

The argument goes thusly.

A = N + H - S

A = atmospheric rate of change
N = natural inputs
H = human inputs
S = sink activity

A is about 1/2 of H, so N - S is less than zero, hence nature is a net sink, hence H is responsible for the rise.

Tres facile. And, very stupid.

S is a dynamic response. It is a feedback response to A, and is thereby a function of N and H, S = S(N,H). But

N - S(N,H) less than zero does not mean that N - S(N,0) is less than zero. N - S(N,H) still has a dependence on human inputs. Only by showing N - S(N,0) is less than zero could you make the claim that nature, on its own, is a net sink.

ATTP,
I have a genuine concern with your approach to the subject of climate. Earlier this year, in describing temperature homogenisation, you stated:-

What if there isn’t a full record, or you can’t find any reason why the data may have been influenced by something non-climatic? Do you just leave it as is? Well, no, that would be silly. We don’t know of any climatic influence that can suddenly cause typical temperatures at a given location to suddenly increase or decrease. It’s much more likely that something non-climatic has influenced the data and, hence, the sensible thing to do is to adjust it to make the data continuous.

So if there is discontinuous features, or local anomalies, in the data (after adjusting for measurement biases) that cannot be explained by a climate model it seems it should be deleted. If that is the case, then surely that is tantamount to saying that the real world temperature data should be (and maybe is being) to some extent adjusted to the scientific hypotheses.

Mike,
I am probably being a bit unfair. Let me re-state my issue.
Raw temperature data is highly complex, and may have some degree of measurement bias. This can be due to the things that ATTP mentions in his article - due to the time of day and frequency of the daily readings; station moves; and changes in the environment around the weather station, such as urbanisation. We may be aware of these factors, but can only estimate the size of the factors from the impact on the data. The estimation is mostly from surrounding temperature stations. What ATTP appears to be saying – and is backed up by many of the adjustments – is that anomalous data is adjusted whether or not there is an explanation, by the extent of the anomaly. An example is Puerto Casado, which ATTP posted about in January. There was a 1C fall in temperatures at the end of the 1960s. The experts say the adjustment was down to a station move. Shub investigated, concluding

IT MOVED BECAUSE THERE IS CHANGE AND THERE IS A CHANGE BECAUSE IT MOVED

I looked at seven other stations in Paraguay. All had similar sized temperature falls in the same period, but none had station moves. Although the area is greater than the UK, the change was adjusted out by both UHCN and BEST, as it does not agree with data from a larger surrounding area. It would appear that a very real temperature change was adjusted out due to it going beyond our current understanding.

"What if there isn’t a full record, or you can’t find any reason why the data may have been influenced by something non-climatic? Do you just leave it as is? Well, no, that would be silly. We don’t know of any climatic influence that can suddenly cause typical temperatures at a given location to suddenly increase or decrease. It’s much more likely that something non-climatic has influenced the data and, hence, the sensible thing to do is to adjust it to make the data continuous."

Standard reply: consider the issue of shrubs and trees growing up around a weather station, or the paint getting old, discoloured, and flaking off the outside of the shelter. These changes occur gradually, causing a steadily increasing warm bias. Then the operators notice the problem and cut back the greenery or repaint the shelter. Sudden jump in numbers back to zero bias. Repeat every few years to get a sawtooth effect in the recorded output.

Question: if you "correct" for the discontinuous jumps, what happens to the overall bias over the long term?

I can understand why a contemporaneous temperature measurement would need adjusting. The first thing noticed would be an anomaly in the temperature with respect to previous readings/nearby temperatures. But on what basis would you adjust the temperature records for readings taken 70 years previously and which had been used in the record since they were taken? And why didn't the original keepers of the record adjust them at the time?

Martin A: "It's simply not science to smooth out observed variations just because you do not understand what caused them."

Very true, but I've had a nagging doubt about keeping records being science at all, it is, to me at least, little more than clerical work, with the requirement to have a modicum of common sense when it comes to sudden changes in a particular temperature measuring station. Employing people with more qualifications than's needed to carry out these simple tasks is providing a hostage to fortune in that they will get bored with the process and become "artistic" in their interoperation of the data.

It would be unjust to a large number of climate scientists to say that the science as a whole doesn't pay much homage to the benefits of observations, but there appear to be a sizeable minority who see the observations as malleable in pursuit of the truth.For them it is a science which has, in the past twenty years at least, has been pursuing "white swans" with a bucket of whitewash handy in case a black swan hove into view. Hopefully we're seeing small changes as production line of science graduates inevitably brings more into the field who aren't necessarily tied to a scientific theory which has failed every known test, and those that are retire. It will take a generation I fear.

I'm not sure it's sustainable as self-perpetuating. You may be right, but I'm not sure, science is self-correcting for sure, but the current generation, or at least some of them, have dug themselves into a hole, but I've noted two things. First of all people like Richard Betts are now moving towards the realist position as it dawns on them that the models are birds entrails they're more like the WD40 of knowledge they help you open the door, but they can't open it for you. And they can[t foretell the future. Second, socially there is a growing awareness that we're leaving real problems untouched while trying to prevent mythical problems in the future. There are as broad a set of views in the progressive camp as there are in the pragmatist camp, and this lack of action on real problems looks as if it's beginning to gain some traction.

Either way it will take some time as "Science progresses one funeral at a time." A theory that Brad Keyes says died with Max Planck.

Shub.
I believe you have only got part way to what is happening with the temperature record. There are the genuine measurement biases - TOBS, UHI and station moves. But the station records are also used as grid reference points in building up regional and global temperature anomalies. In a single process (but with lots of iterations) it would appear that homogenization programs both try to allow for measurement biases and create grid reference points. Then nobody sense-checks the data. The reason I highlight ATTP's quote is that it seems to encapsulate why this happens. Climatologists tend to have a reason for everything. So any measurement that cannot be explained is most likely due to some measurement error.