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."

> 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-co...

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.

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.

That's the problem with any method used to try and determine information about the distant past: you have to make assumptions about your information-gathering method that may turn out to be incorrect. In the case of ice core samples, many scientists ASSUME that x number of layers corresponds to y number of years. Which is fine and dandy until some example comes along which throws that assumption into question. Consider, for example, the "lost squadron" of WWII. These planes were discovered over 200 feet deep under many layers of ice. Therefore, they must be many thousands of years old, right? Now, this doesn't mean that ALL deep ice structures are that young, but it certainly throws into question any conclusions drawn from ice core data. Now, this is my opinion, but I for one feel like many (not all) scientists continue to assume such methods are reliable and accurate. Perhaps they need the grant money. Perhaps they have devoted so much to their research that they just can't accept that all the time they spent drilling ice cores may have been wasted. Or (again, this is my opinion), perhaps they are climate change zealots who feel that they must convince the population they are right, regardless of the cost of their scientific integrity.

Since I am conveniently unable to respond to Mr. Woodchuck's comment below his, I'll make it here. You assume I am a creationist because.... I point out evidence that questions the validity of historical climate research - that happens to also be used by creationists? You miss the point. As the article you linked to to "refute" me itself indicates, ice layer accumulation is inconsistent. Therefore, any conclusions regarding historical events drawn from such data would have to be questioned. The fact that they were pointing out differing conditions leading to the rapid ice accumulation in Greenland is tacit admission that accumulation is not consistent and uniform. Who is to say that any other ice structure has been formed by consistent and predictable processes anywhere, when you are dealing with historic weather patterns? The ONLY way to be sure of such things is with an actual HISTORIC record, recorded by intelligent beings. My original comment was in reply to an assertion that ice core samples are a reliable source of scientific data, and your attempt at invalidating my argument by appealing to disdain for religion ("oh he must be a Creationist! Don't listen to him") is insufficient. I may actually believe in God, but I find comments such as yours to be all the more religious in their fervor.

> You assume I am a creationist because....

Because the only reason to reject well-established scientific conclusions such as evolution and global warming is moral and emotional reasons deriving from membership in a Conservative Christian religous group that confuses the Bible with reality.

> As the article you linked to to "refute" me itself indicates, ice layer accumulation is inconsistent. Therefore, any conclusions regarding historical events drawn from such data would have to be questioned.

Which is exactly why ice is not dated solely by visible layers. An overview of ice core dating is here: http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/magazine/2014-1/PAGE...

Instead, ice cores are dated by measuring independent signatures: isotopic compositions (reflecting season variations in local temperature) different kinds of impurity (reflecting seasonal dust and other mineral concentration), known events (such as volcanic eruptions, fires). In addition, there's a host of new methods and statistics being used and developed.

Effectively, there is no reason to reject the sound science behind ice-core dating unless your Church Group told you that God wants you to. But that's a silly way to find truth.

You are a creationist so it is likely your moral and emotional need to believe in God is biasing and corrupting your understanding of science.

> Consider, for example, the "lost squadron" of WWII. These planes were discovered over 200 feet deep under many layers of ice. Therefore, they must be many thousands of years old, right?

This is straight from the Institute of Creation Research, known Liars for Jesus. This nonsense is dealt with here http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD410.html. In short, ice layers are counted by many different methods and no one thinks that 200 feet deep automatically means thousands of years old.

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?

1. It's still a front-page story for me (I've been wondering how HN determines front page nowadays, I'm starting to suspect it's not the same for everyone).

2. You're probably being downvoted for the "astroturfing armies Thiel has installed" thing.

2 is no less disprovable than the objections to climate science - and can be argued in favour of with identical arguments. Yet it is for some reason less credible than climate change denial.

I'm with you, the disinformation campaign is growing here.

Can you prove that you're not a Markov chain? Until proven otherwise the above is just random word salad thrown together by an algorithm.

> 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.

It seems unlikely that the earths atmosphere would remain unaffected by human impacts.

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.

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.