TallDave,
And building GCM models against that data based on the unvalidated assumption that small changes in a trace gas are the primary driver of climate then claiming those models are 90% reliable is just crazy.
The models are not based on temperature data, they are based on generalized* physical properties of gases and thermodynamics (none of which rely on climate / weather temperature data). But since you have shown absolutely no evidence that you have read one freaking model paper, instead insisting on code that you will never be able to understand, I really have nothing more to say on this matter.
It's time someone makes an open climate model based on these papers. Someone needs to pay me money and I'll happily do it. I'll even get a skeptic to help me with it, and we can both read the papers together and decide upon how the model should be built. Otherwise I simply don't have the time for such an endeavor.
*in this context generalized doesn't mean that the physical properties are not modeled accurately, simply that the computational power necessary to model them perfectly doesn't exist. Hansen's 1988 model was good enough to delve future temperatures for a decade, and the 2001 model is accurate to this day, future models will be better.
Polls are now finding the percentage of people who believe AGW is a real and urgent problem is approaching the number who believe Mars is littered with alien artifacts, even despite all the AGW cheerleading from the MSM.
The propaganda campaign is working, science filtered as entertainment rather than knowledge pursuit. One guy, a real scientist on one side, another guy, a shill for some industry or an idiot blogger on the other side. That's entertainment. Though of course, the number of people who believe that the Earth is 5000 years old is pretty staggering, so I wouldn't place much merit in the intelligence of the public. (And I am a fan of mob intelligence.) The deniers are increasingly in the creationist camp, in my experience.
That anonymous and deeply stupid article was already completely destroyed here by Eschenbach.
Erm, I linked that article particularly because it has the link to your article and a second rebuttal by the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... _gun_still
The fact that you did not realize this leads me to believe that you actually have not read either article.
Darwin Zero is not a smoking gun by any means (sorry, gotta at least give those 22k hits for it as a conspiracy a chance for an alternate view). What it is is an attempt to obfuscate the peer review process and mislead the public. No comments about the little experiment Kilty did? Shame. I'd think a forum full of engineers would be happy to look at it.
You keep pointing to the methodology papers. They aren't following the methodology.
Not established in any way whatsoever.
Yes, Darwin Zero is the smoking gun.
No, sea ice melt, Greenland, the whole arctic sea, and East and West Antarctica is the smoking gun. Hardiness zone changes are the smoking gun (unless we want to say the USDA is full of crazy environmentalists, of course). More extreme weather patterns are the smoking gun. All predicted to varying extents (some failures in others, such as Antarctica).
Of course, if we start with throwing the data out, then, well, there ain't shit I can say, right? You disbelieve the data, you have absolutely no alternate data set to share, so we're just frick.
MSimon,
So please Oh Data Master please tell me what is the correct sampling frequency for Climate in order to separate the signal from the out of band noise?
I don't know, the temperature record has been atrocious. But do you disagree with any methods that the scientists have used to come to their conclusions? What is interesting is that we are complaining about error bars in smaller data sets, when the final data sets have error bars of 0.04 (0.02+-) or less. They conclude this through using a diverse array of data and a diverse array of statistical methods. Picking at *one set* of temperature data alone does not suffice. It's like saying that because I flipped a coin 10 times and it was heads 8 out of ten times that statistically speaking 80% of all coin flips will be heads, which would be ridiculous. More like "I cannot make a statement about coin flips based on that data alone." No shit, the scientists don't base the whole of global climate forcing on one data set. This is precisely why denialists try to discredit every single data set on record, without contributing anything to the scientific process (if there *are* problems with them then they'd be better off if they were corrected, and not bemoaned incessantly).
In any event, if CLARREO is accomplished then we will have extraordinarily accurate measurements down to some ridiculous percentage (I believe 0.1 K) that would make all denialists cry like babies. Of course, they'd still claim CO2 wasn't the cause. This is why it was necessary for the CO2 monitoring satellite to go up, since they would have complimented each other perfectly.
Dude. You are blowing smoke when you say that you have looked at the data. Seen it? To be sure. Looked with a critical eye? Not on your life.
I downloaded every single bit of it for later pursuit. I don't see why I should verify or falsify the scientific data myself, when there are plenty of nutjobs out there who claim the methodology is wrong, and who have whole websites dedicated to making all sorts of graphs about this subject, getting paid a bunch of money for web traffic. They have the time, they could do it. However, I do plan to write some code to do a lot of the analysis for me, but I simply believe that if there was a smoking gun here it would be shown clear as day, without conspiracy filled innuendos.
Instead what we have are cries for data that already exists. Why? Why would people who can't do a 5 second google search ("climate station histories") perpetuate disinformation that the data doesn't exist?
Jccarlton, character assassination rather than scientific scrutiny doesn't work with me:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_La ... 070927.pdf
I am spending the majority of my time contributing, hopefully, insightful commentary, not character attacks. I could have called Eschenbach all sorts of names, I refused. Yeah, I get snarky, I admit it, but only to people who can actually defend themselves, normally. It really annoys me when people trash talk someone that cannot defend themselves.
Merry Christmas, y'all. And to prove that I don't look at local, short term, small data sets? It's about 12 degrees (F) out right now. And I still believe global warming is happening due to the copious amount of evidence to that effect.