Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A Friendly General Discussion with ATTP

TBYIJ - you have described the life cycle of the BH troll. We've seen previous examples - Raff, Chandra, bitbucket, BBD, and others whose pseudos I can't recall offhand who have followed the pattern.

One common element among them is what probably could be described as a range of personality defects - revealed as obsessive behaviour, responding with hostility to neutrally posed questions or remarks, lack of self-awareness, and so on.

One or two clearly have an element of borderline Aspergers, or at very least severe nerdism, in their make up.

Apr 1, 2015 at 7:17 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

We-e-e-l-ll… the more observant amongst you may already know my opinion of aTTB. Suffice to say, what is the point of this discussion? Listen to one of the more august and wise amongst us, TheBigYinJames, and stop feeding this troll.

Apr 1, 2015 at 7:46 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

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.

Apr 1, 2015 at 8:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterDavid Blake

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

Apr 2, 2015 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

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".

Apr 2, 2015 at 12:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterAnd Then There's Physics

I enjoy disrupting echo chambers with alternative views. And I am called a Troll for it, despite being polite.

So I welcomed the viewpoints of And Then There's Physics.

But then it became clear that he is dishonest.
Having a different view to me is OK - even interesting. But having a different view to the one he himself extols is clearly contemptuous.

On the question of smoky fires in the third world he eventually conceded that, yes obviously, without the cheapest energy children will continue to die needlessly. And that fossil fuels are the cheapest form of energy for now.

But then he still goes back to the anti-CO2 story without considering the acknowledged benefits. He knows he's arguing for the unnecessary deaths of the poor and he still goes ahead. That's not a different view. That's the same view being ignored for cynical purposes.

He also has his own dictionary that uses words like "sceptic" in a completely different way to English speakers. And then he complains when people understand what he has actually said without considering how he was trying to deceive them at that time.

The cases are too numerous to mention. But in summary, And Then There's Physics is not a person of integrity.

Apr 2, 2015 at 12:54 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

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..

Apr 2, 2015 at 1:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

ATTP, your blog actions are hypocritical, it's part of your set-up., it's ok. In the words of a famous royal astronomer, "own it".

I can bet there's nothing you can do to get yourself banned here.

Apr 2, 2015 at 2:39 PM | Registered Commentershub

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.

Apr 2, 2015 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

TBY, I did it on this thread only because it was a 'friendly discussion' thing. On the main ones I don't have much or anything to say to him.

Apr 2, 2015 at 3:02 PM | Registered Commentershub

"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

Apr 3, 2015 at 4:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterNial

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.

Apr 3, 2015 at 6:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterBart

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.

Apr 19, 2015 at 9:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

Kevin Marshall
To be fair, that is not what ATTP is saying. He doesn't mention models; he asserts that "we don't know of any climatic influence" that can suddenly cause temperature changes and he has a point. And he is right in logic to suggest that to avoid discontinuity it may be proper to make an adjustment.
What he and his fellow climateers never get round to explaining is how they calculate what is the appropriate adjustment to make, how it is possible when adjusting for UHI that reducing the old figure makes any sense, and how it is possible to lower historical figures 10, 20, or even 50 years after the event.
On a very small scale it would be interesting to know what a "sudden" temperature change is. The minimum on my thermometer for the last week of January in the last five years has been -3.0, -11.8, 0.0, 0.7, 0.0. To my mind that was just a cold week (which indeed it was!) but at what stage in the future is someone going to "adjust" that because it was so "evidently" out of line with comparable figures?

Apr 19, 2015 at 10:47 AM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

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.

Apr 19, 2015 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

ATTP is reported (above) to have 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."

Suppose a second-year student in some other area of physics were studying X and recording an observed variable y. If they were to state


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

I would hope that their lecturer would give them some advice on the need to persist in finding out what was actually causing the observed changes, rather than simply to smooth out the observed changes by use of some ad hoc smoothing formula.

It's simply not science to smooth out observed variations just because you do not understand what caused them - or to guess what caused them and then to use your guess to justify codging the observed data.

Apr 20, 2015 at 9:51 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

This reminds me of when I got my first full time job. I'd written up my PhD (Physics) and had managed to get an interview for a software engineering job. I didn't want to go as it wasn't a science related job but my mum told me go anyway and see. So when I got there they had us do a test.

One of the training questions went something like this:

The July crop yield history in Farm Alphaville over the last 5 years was:

Year 1 - 20,000 units
Year 2 - 25,000 units
Year 3 - 30,000 units
Year 4 - 35,000 units
Year 5 - 40,000 units

(Can't remember what units where)

The question then asked:

From this data estimate the yield for January in Year 6?

Possible answers where:
A) 42,000
B) 42,500
C) 43,100
D) Don't know

The correct answer was D

It was correct because you only had data for July so any other month would be an assumption, and one beyond the remit of the question. As we were going to be reading and following requirements we had to do exactly what they said. We couldn't assume. Otherwise a code error could lead to a failure which could lead to people dying.

It certainly made my science more accountable when I later did a bit of both for ion thruster development.

Apr 20, 2015 at 3:33 PM | Registered CommenterMicky H Corbett

"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?

Apr 20, 2015 at 8:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterNullius in Verba

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?

Apr 22, 2015 at 6:16 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

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.

Apr 22, 2015 at 6:36 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

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.

Forelorn hope.

It's a self-perpetuating thing. Who, today, would take a degree in 'climate science' who was not already sold on its basic ideas? Who, today, teaches next year's graduates?

Apr 22, 2015 at 7:29 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

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.

Apr 22, 2015 at 8:28 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

Here's a litmus test. If the field cared about global surface temperature, it would perform direct, controlled measurements - of the kind Victor Venema's group seems to be working at - in order to quantify its nature objectively and independently. There is a thread with BBD, matthu, Mike Jackson and others going back to 2011 where this is discussed. A station record is one number - there's only so much information that you can extract from it. Climatists want to extract global averages, the local record, UHI, and your grandmother's birthday - all from the same single instrumental record.

Apr 24, 2015 at 12:02 PM | Registered Commentershub

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.

Apr 27, 2015 at 12:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Marshall

Kevin Marshall - is it worth passing those comments to The International Temperature Data Review Project whose panel is inviting interested parties to submit evidence?

Apr 27, 2015 at 8:16 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A