Indeed, especially when you note all the siting problems (near heat islands, etc.)

On thing I might suggest generally, is that you require comments to be civil. I would think that this would encourage better, more in depth discussion and participation by knowledgeable folks on both sides of the debate.

Eric’s patience is noted, but others will almost assuredly be drawn into a food fight, sooner or later.

In any case, thank you for creating this site. I’ve learned a bit and will be back.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.3bb1cb136038ab4034b51162ec256bcc.281&show_article=1

“And the ups and downs in the temperature record are not in any way evidence of negative feedbacks or long term stability. No possible inference about those two things can be drawn. Your logic is faulty.”

Nice try, but you are wide of the mark.

On all three points.

Let’s take them one at a time.

“And the ups and downs in the temperature record are not in any way evidence of negative feedbacks or long term stability.” Wrong. In a dynamic system, oscillation around a norm over a long period of time is in fact precisely what we would expect to see if there are negative feedbacks and long-term stability. We can certainly debate how much weight should be assigned to any particular piece of evidence, but you are simply incorrect that the temperature record is “not in any way evidence.”

“No possible inference about those two things can be drawn.” Wrong. An inference certainly can be drawn, and reasonably so. It would also be very reasonable to expect those who might challenge that reasonable inference to come forward with some evidence as to why the reasonable inference is incorrect. What you may have meant to say, but didn’t, is that it does not follow as a matter of logical deduction from the temperature record alone that the climate system is dominated by negative feedbacks or long term stability. Fortunately for me, I never stated that it did.

“Your logic is faulty.” Wrong, as detailed above.

Adieu.

Lovely, so we agree on a very simplistic description of how temperatures have varied. Your comment in brackets is meaningless though, unless you literally mean by it that temperatures might go to zero or infinity. And the ups and downs in the temperature record are not in any way evidence of negative feedbacks or long term stability. No possible inference about those two things can be drawn. Your logic is faulty.

“as far as anyone can tell, has never reached a “tipping point” in the past”

You should not consider that everyone is as ignorant as you are. A ‘tipping point’ is a sudden jump in climate state in response to a smoothly varying forcing. We know all about these; look up “ice age”.

In science, if someone is pontificating despite being unaware of basic and important results, it’s quite normal to tell them so. If you consider that a demeaning insult, then stop being so ignorant. The beliefs that you are expressing are a combination of factually wrong, logically meaningless and utterly irrelevant. For many years, people have been politely pointing out the flawed thinking shown by people like you, but you clearly haven’t listened. So if you can’t be bothered to educate yourself but prefer to speak from ignorance, then I am quite happy to tell you that in no uncertain terms.

Thus, in the particular example we are looking at, namely temperature (setting aside for a moment the significant issues of whether the concept of a global- or hemisphere-wide temperature makes sense, whether alleged proxies are in fact temperature proxies, etc.), we can say that if x drives increasing temperatures and if y is a negative feedback on x, it does not follow that temperatures will eventually vector negative, due to the mere existence of y. The same would hold true with a reversal the other direction. Fortunately, I did not say that the existence of a particular feedback will cause the sign of the vector to reverse, so I have nothing to be censured of in this regard.

What I did say was that the up’s and down’s on the graph you pointed to “eventually give way to movement in the opposite direction (as opposed to spiraling out of control).” I also said that such an overall picture is “prima facie evidence of negative feedbacks and long-term stability.” I did not attempt to tie any particular movement to any particular feedback. This is entirely consistent with the last paragraph of the original post.

In any oscillating system which, as far as anyone can tell, has never reached a “tipping point” in the past, there are only a finite number of possibilities (I’ll refer again just to our two variables for simplicity): (i) either feedback y becomes sufficiently strong to eventually cause the vector to reverse, (ii) x eventually loses some of its temperature-driving potential, which, in combination with y causes the vector to reverse, or (iii) some other factor outside of, or in combination with, x and/or y causes the reversal of the vector.

Without making claims about any particular driver or any particular feedback, the observation of a dynamic oscillating system that changes the direction of its vector many times throughout history without once spiraling out of control, is, as I stated, prima facie evidence of negative feedbacks and long-term stability. The burden of proof is on anyone who posits that the system has somehow now become subject to mechanisms that would overpower the long-term stability of the system.

I would be happy to discuss this further if you would be willing to do so sans the demeaning insults. Otherwise, I have no intention of responding further, as I trust I have adequately articulated my points.