Yes. I was going from (faulty) recollection without checking. TY
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by Rud Istvan
↧
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by omanuel
I am frankly surprised, Steven Mosher, that you are still around after Steven Goddard and others demonstrated the data manipulation behind AGW.
I deeply regret that the BEST team drug the good name of UC-Berkeley onto the consensus train before it derailed.
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by ianl8888
There is nothing sneaky about it at all
The post reverberates with variations of the “social justice” propaganda line
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by Rud Istvan
Frank, what you say is only partly true. The reason is [although I can only point to specifics in Florida (hurricane hardening) and Massachusetts (Cape Wind)] regulators do not automatically pass through hidden intermittency costs or necessary minimum returns on new capital investments. This post is not the place to debate regulatory law, but rate setting is highly politicized. So badly that a big German utility announced it was throwing in the towel. See comment upthread.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Tony B,
I’m a readin’. I’m a readin’.
Gathering evidence, building a foundation, and trying to become educated. Taking on line courses, and maybe a bit of flailing about. But it’s making me think!
Would you suggest “The Chilling Stars” at this point, or to save for future?
Currently in wonderful conversation with Dr. Richard Milne also. He’s a patient man.
Regards,
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Alexander Biggs
Beth: Thank you for your poetic reply. Trouble is no one writes equations that rhyme. An age of elegance has passed.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Danny
Yes, I would recommend the book but it’s not one you coud read whilst watching the tv. It’s pretty heavy going but intriguing. They did a fairly inconclusive experiment on cosmic rays at CERN a year or so ago.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by Don Monfort
I wonder what would have happened if Obama had succeeded in his plan to kill coal companies and stop electric utilities use of coal with his carbon tax. He said it would make the cost of electricity “skyrocket”.
Well it took him a while to get around to fulfilling that campaign promise.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/5/editorial-the-high-price-of-hope/
↧
Comment on Week in review by Tonyb
Danny
Andrew montford from bishop hill, a British blog, carried an item on dr Milne a few years ago concerning the divergence problem
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/14/richard-milne-on-the-divergence-problem.html
Tonyb
↧
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by ianl8888
> … induce taxpayers to alter behaviour, not on business merit, but on tax code, which is the definition of inefficiency
From Jimmy Doo Doo’s viewpoint, inefficiency is a wonderful way to reduce consumption and redistribute other people’s money by force
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by Rob Starkey
“Interesting to think of what the implications would have been for synergistic positive externalities derived from greater subsidizing of electric cars/electric-powered public transportation (less increase in fuel costs, less pollution, less enriching of autocrats who deprive their populations of basic civic infrastructure with the potential for significant opportunity cost in human capital). ”
Interesting that someone writes something so completely meaningless.
↧
Comment on Clean Air – Who Pays? by Steven Mosher
“I am frankly surprised, Steven Mosher, that you are still around after Steven Goddard and others demonstrated the data manipulation behind AGW.
I deeply regret that the BEST team drug the good name of UC-Berkeley onto the consensus train before it derailed.”
Lets see. Berkeley adjustments COOL the record post 1960.
That’s right.
Those crazy guys adjusting the ocean cooled it.
and the berkeley guys cooled the record after 1960. WTF..
we didnt get the conspiracy memo.
Wait.. you didnt know that. Goddard didnt know that.
Now that Booker and Delingpole have swallowed the conspiracy meme, hook line and sinker.. bobber on the lips..
its time to reel them in.
See the post coming.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by rooter
Lucifer: You can of course leave it out. But by what criteria? How to decide?
The main problem for you here is that you do not like that the adjustments are spot on in this case. The adjusted data represent the temperature history far better than the raw unadjusted data.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher
Bob the wmo numbers are different as well.
There appears to be a partial overlap. But we don’t assert that stations are identical unless they are substantially the same in position names identifiers and data.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Ian H
Stevenson shelters need regular maintenance. The whitewash wears off and has to be redone for example. The fact that someone was employed to maintain the instruments is an assurance that the data is of good quality, not a sign that it should be distrusted.
If data from instruments I was responsible for was adjusted in this cavalier fashion I know I would be annoyed. Such adjustments are a slight on the scientific reputations of those who gathered the data. It is tantamount to a suggestion that they were so incompetent they couldn’t use a thermometer properly.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
rogercaiazza, ” I am specifically interested in the temperature trends in New York State and have argued that BEST data are appropriate to use.”
Climate Explorer has a mask that includes states that you can use to compare different interpolation/adjustment versions.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
This is one for Georgia.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by John Smith (it's my real name)
just want to say
Robert Rohde, Zeke Hausfather, Steve Mosher
thanks for this post
read with great interest
trying to remain skeptical of my own skepticism
thanks also to Judith Curry
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher
Too few stations
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Jonathan Abbott
Waggy,
All I said was that BEST has done pretty much as well as anyone can with the available data, and that Delingpole and Booker are mistaken if they think they can stop alarmism in its tracks by asserting fraud in adjusted data.
Oddly, Mosher jumps down my throat every time I mention how I became a sceptic but lets it pass when I say that I used to be suspicious of the temperature adjustments, but he and Zeke (OK, mainly Zeke) have convinced me that the BEST approach is more or less sound.
Anyway, I agree completely that the coverage and quality of the data is totally inadequate to the task of measuring any sort of average global temperature (absolute or anomaly) to within 0.1°C. And in any case, as noted elsewhere, it’s moist enthalpy we should be measuring anyway, not just temperature.
Am I still sceptical? Sure. I’d call myself a microwarmer (as in AGW is real but too small to worry about and probably too small to measure with the network we have now). But shouting about temperature record adjustments is the wrong way to go to fight the politicised alarmism of Greenpeace et al.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by rooter
Osborn: Is that all you have? The scandal is wrong adjustments in Iceland? Well, take comfort. There are probably more wrong adjustments in the Arctic in GHCN (not necessarily BEST though). Taken together these adjustments in the Arctic reduce the Arctic temperature trend in this century.
A scandal? But not a warming adjustment like Homewood tried to convey.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
