I see sound and fury, about nothing,,
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Steve, you have made the point time and again that in a long temporal window, stations do not exist. You look at a local, and the assign station breaks that result from instrument changes or moves. You have stated many, many times, that Station ID’s are meaningless as identifiers of a continuous measurement of temperature, at a single local.
Now you argue that one can show the robustness of the BEST temperature field generation by comparing out of sample ‘stations’ with the BEST field. I find the logic faulty.
Science rests on positive and negative controls. You state that that you cannot be sure of values from any site are dependable, which is why you have a data screening process. Building and monitoring sites that you KNOW to be reporting correctly is a minimum starting point. Plonk down a station in a field and compare its daily min/max, recorded both electronically and via mercury max/min thermometer, compare this with your ‘field’. State, a prior, what analysis you will use to test if your temperature field reports values that are statistically insignificant from the actual, physical, values reported by mercury expansion and thermonuclear.
Stations are not migratory. They do not move due to Brownian motion. They do not change their local due to some random process. Stations move because people move them. People are motivated to move them, at expense, for a variety of reasons, but the fact that the site would be more useful for something else is probably the biggest reason. The motivation for movement is a bias, and one that you ignore.
As for the little ice age, why the jibe Steve? I can live with knowing that things are fuzzy. I work on cancer and try to understand the pathophysiology, knowing full well that I do not understand normal cell physiology. I understand full well that much of what I believe I know is little more than guesswork.
You can live with the fact that your raw station data is not raw station data and has already undergone, unacknowledged and undescribed, manipulation before you place it in your sausage machine.
You only play these silly word games to distract from the real.
↧
Comment on Week in review by GaryM
Joseph,
It is not just the headline that is sensationalized, the whole article is. It takes all the assumptions that went into the ‘research” then expands the purported findings beyond what the researchers claimed.
“The Earth, we are learning yet again, demands respect. Mess with it and there’s no end to the problems you create.”
How sciency can you get?
And I know progressives think Fox News is a bunch of conservative ideologues like the NY Times and the rest of the Dem PR machine are for progressivism, but Fox is not conservative. It is conservative in a comparative sense in that most of the talking heads are not full blown supporters of outright socialism like most of the MSM (whether they know it or not), But it is not conservative as that term was properly used until recently.
With the exception of Sean Hannity, .every commentator I can think of on Fox is a “moderate” or “independent” or “libertarian” conservative. They are like the GOP leadership (or most European “conservatives”). They are all for central planning, they just want “conservative” central planners, which is an oxymoron. They are also all for the progressive social agenda, with maybe the exception of abortion on demand until the date of birth.
But conservative? Nope..
↧
Comment on Week in review by GaryM
Joseph,
And my response to you is in moderation. Probably because I used the “a” word – as in the Roe v Wade “a” word.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Define equilibrium
Explain when it is reasonable to use the equilibrium approximation to describe a steady state.
Do the energy fluxes of rotating planets and the steady state cyclical nature of surface and atmospheric temperatures allow this system to be reasonably described by the equilibrium approximation?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
I hope you can explain why Fox News does it..
And I agree, if Obama or other prominent figures start saying climate change cause volcanoes, that maybe something needs to be said about that article. But I just don’t think that is going to be an issue or topic coming up in the future.. What do you think, Gary?
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
What will the $60 per barrel that was being sent to oil producers last year be spent on this year?
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by beng
I’ve read alot of the electric-car articles, and none so far have impressed. To start — way too expensive.
In a cold winter climate, you need heat & lots of it. Batteries don’t make the grade on that point alone.
This post does interest me, tho. Just to produce enough heat in winter & deal w/steep grades all year, a range-extender would be required. Check.
But as an engineer, simpler is better/cheaper/more reliable, so if you’re going to have a ICE range-extender, why not just drop all the electric motor/battery gizmos and run off an ICE like regular vehicles?
Bottom line, wondering what the range of costs could eventually be? 60-grand for a car is way too much for most. Even 30-grand.
↧
Comment on Week in review by mwgrant
“Heh, Cap’n, he can krig to find the endangered bears.”
Sounds like he should be concerned about them finding him…
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
mwgrant, “Sounds like he should be concerned about them finding him…”
I heard they were on the brink of extinction since the Arctic is so much warmer now that it was in the 30s and 40s.
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Well it is quite clear that they used every trick in the book to get the highest possible temperature and still failed.
The increasing discrepancy between the satellite and surface measurements needs to be addressed.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
True that, Doc.
From the article:
…
(Bloomberg) — The rout in crude oil prices may mean as much as $75 billion in gasoline savings for U.S. drivers in 2015, according to AAA.
…
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Joseph –
Just forget about it. You see, like 90% of the American public, meaning anyone who is to the left of atilla the hun, you are a “progressive,” and thus just incapable of even comprehending GaryM’s level of critical thinking. Don’t bother trying to convince him of anything, just sit back and watch in awe what someone of such intellectual and moral superiority comes up with.
↧
↧
Comment on Towards mass marketed electric vehicles by kim
Steam, electric, gasoline internal combustion. Been there, done that. Mobile things need an energy dense fuel source, else be handicapped or hogtied.
==========
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Jim D: From the hiatus link “The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the warming caused by increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded. ”
The other message from that study is that 15-year projections have never been reliable. The only really “out of sample” data are the data since the model runs, and for the out of sample data the 15 year trends are high. Totally lacking is any reason to believe that current model extrapolations into the future will be any more reliable than the 15-year projections have ever been.
This is about as clear a demonstration of the unreliability of the model projections as has yet been published.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RR
100 is a nice round number…one he simply rounded up to. What I’ve always enjoyed about Gore is that the CO2/temp chart in his own book doesn’t support his claim. But..he sold one to me back then. Mission accomplished.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
what GaryM said:
“No, he didn’t. The Time article says nothing about the impact of Icelandic eruptions on other parts of the globe.”
What the author wrote:
“Not only is that damaging Icelandic habitats and contributing to the global rise in sea levels,”
See the word global
AND FURTHER:
“Contemporary humans got a nasty taste of what that’s like back in 2010 when the volcanic caldera under the Eyjafjallajökull ice cap in southern Iceland blew its top, erupting for three weeks from late March to mid-April and spreading ash across vast swaths of Europe. The continent was socked in for a week, shutting down most commercial flights.”
in short. the” trouble everywhere” that the author refers to is this
1. increase in GLOBAL sea level
2. Disruption of air travel.
Anthony mis interpreted “trouble everywhere” to mean increase in volcanoes everywhere
BUT to use Willis’ rule “Quote my words” the author never says
it will increase volcanoes everywhere. he says “trouble”
Trouble is explained as a rise in sea leve.
Trouuble is explained as disruption of air travel
We MIGHT accuse the author of hyperbole.
but NOT of claiming that vulcanism will change everywhere
garyM. read more, comment less
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Bill
Rud, you think logic will work? You are so idealistic!
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
You can’t get an accurate long-term trend from a 15-year sample of the observations. Its variance since 1900 is +/-0.1 which is comparable with the decadal trends you are trying to measure. It turns out that 30-year trends have much smaller variations where you can get decadal trends reliably from a 30-year sample. Most of the 15-year variance just cancels in 30 years. It seems to be the nature of the global time series that somewhere between 15 and 30 years you get this cancellation making 15 no-good and 30 good for detecting long-term trends.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Rob Ellison
‘Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
The regimes are quite obviously 20 to 30 years in duration – and not remotely +/- 0.1 degrees C. .
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
