Danny, I see nothing compelling about common ground. It’s not an objective. We need better science, not some agreement for agreement’s sake.
Comment on Open thread by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by kim
Common ground is rising before us. Human caused warming is mild and most likely benevolent, with exceptions. Human caused greening is jes tremenjus, all fall down and thank the Lawd, er, the Lady, Gaia.
==================
↧
Comment on Open thread by phatboy
JCH, You cannot describe temperatures of -10C to -30C as “not cold”, regardless of the relationship to the baseline.
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
You seem to believe that selling power to other countries is a bad thing, it isn’t. Some newer nuclear designs automatically or otherwise follow load, so even the no-load-following is no longer true.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Eliza
The person who sold his house Frank Cooke above based on AGW advice could have a compelling legal case against the “climate scientists” who assured him (through media or otherwise) it would be under water by now. Maybe a legal case for Roger Sowell? This is the only way to deal with these people.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by richardcfromnz
[Me] – “Next station satisfying the criteria is CORUMBA BRAZIL, 362.68 km away. The above 3 stations represent the nearest “regional expectation” for Puerto Casado.”
[Mosher] – “Wrong.”
Because……….?
Keke has said upthread that the entire segment means either side of an “empirical break” at a station are what is compared to the “regional expectation”. These segment means are graphed for every BEST station and show the relative segment differences when the series is reconstructed i.e. the series is not reconstructed for the BEST process but BEST has reconstructed each site “solely for those interested in data from that specific station”. Keke:
[A] >”Technically the series is cut at breakpoints and every segment is treated as an individual station for the purposes of constructing the underlying temperature field. However, the general point is that it is the mean temperature of the segment, rather than its start or endpoints, that is relevant when combining it with other stations to estimate the temperature field.”
[B] >”We also produce “adjusted” records for each station, though these are not actually used for the Berkeley temperature product and are solely for those interested in data from that specific station. These records are combined by aligning the mean values of each subsegment of the station record, as shown in the example above.”
Zeke Hausfather | February 11, 2015 at 12:26 pm |
A slight correction: I should have said “These records are combined by aligning the mean values of each subsegment relative to the regional expectation (e.g. based on comparisons to nearby stations) of the station record, as shown in the example above”
So now we know to look at the quality of the segments of the comparator stations that make up the “regional expectation” that correspond to the target station segments either side of the break in order to ascertain whether the break is valid, or not.
In respect to Puerto Casado,
1) There are no other stations nearer than the 3 above to the (supposed) Puerto Casado 1971 break that satisfy the overlap criteria i.e. have data. These are the “neighbouring” or “nearby” stations as Zeke terms them.
2) Given 1), the 3 “neighbour” stations above MUST represent the NEAREST climatology to Puerto Casado. But that’s still no guarantee that the microclimates are similar. To determine comparator-target compatibility, a statistical cross-break analysis like R&S93 upthread is required. This is the root of the NZCSC v NIWA controversy in NZ. NZCSC adhere to the methodology, NIWA doesn’t. BEST do not even apply such a test in any way.
3) Going farther away from the 3 e.g. CORUMBA BRAZIL, 362.68 km away and farther still, becomes less and less relevant and more and more removed from the microclimate of Puerto Casado UNLESS the test in 2) is carried out and satisfied for “remote” stations..
And again, is the comparator station data that corresponds to the cross-break segments of the target, a raw series or a reconstructed series as above (cite/quote the process documentation)?
Cross-posted at Climate Conversation Group here:
↧
Comment on Open thread by JCH
Yes, the Medieval Not Quite So Cold Period and the Little Extra Cold Age.
Global Uncolding.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Pekka Pirilä
I learned originally some engineering. physics, and mathematics at the Technical University of Helsinki (presently Aalto University). PhD in 1973, dissertation on computational methods in elementary particle physics. Worked two years at CERN, two years at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, rest of my life in Finland in basic and applied research and academia.
Switched from physics to energy research at the Technical Research Centre of Finland in 1980, and 19 years later to my last position at my Alma Mater as professor of energy economics, retired 2009.
I first learned about GHE in 1980 when I participated in a multi-day seminar at IIASA. It was included as a potentially important factor in the large energy system study “Energy in the Finite World” that got it’s motivation from the oil crises of 1970s. The study included assessments of all important sources of energy and reached conclusions that have in many cases turned out to be quite correct. The overall development has, however, turned out to be highly different from projected in that study.
I have worked with several large energy system models collaborating internationally. I saw, how that kind of models are at the same time very uncertain and crude and very useful. I have experience also on many other large models including equilibrium models of economics as well as models used in physics and engineering. All this experience with models has strengthened my view that models are at the same time important and problematic. I think that this is an appropriate starting point for looking at large climate models as well. I don’t take at face value results of a model, but I take them as an important piece of information to be considered together with other information that can be obtained on the same issues.
My lectures included something about climate change as background material for energy policy, and I was the editor and one contributor to a book on socioeconomic dimensions of climate change mitigation in 1999, but I didn’t make any real effort to understand much more about the atmosphere and the physical climate before retiring.
I don’t think that learning much more about climate has changed much my overall views on climate change or climate science. I consider IPCC WG1 full reports well balanced, in general. I don’t buy easily views that differ substantially from that in either direction. I think that the uncertainties are large, but not too large for drawing conclusions.
Where the uncertainties seem sometimes even too large is in assessing policy alternatives. I don’t think that uncertainties on the strength of warming form a valid reason for not acting, but the difficulties in estimating where each policy choice leads is a bigger impediment. If it’s unlikely that a specific decision is of any help, then that decision cannot be justified. Climate policy must be built on policies that can be sustained in real world political environment. It must also likely produce positive results. There are many weak choices that are expected to lead in the right direction, but even put together such choices may be too little to make a real dent in warming.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Bob Ludwick
@ Steven Mosher
“good point. we cant prove that making adjustments changes the answer in a statistically significant way.”
Or that it doesn’t
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Political Junkie
Frequent lurker – sometime poster.
I have humble undergraduate degrees in Maths and Physics – follow most issues outside of the fancy statistics debates w2hich are above my payscale.
Spent some time in fairly big league environmental management consulting business – usually working for manufacturing industries or financial institutions doing transaction due diligence.
Became interested in the absolutely abysmal press coverage of the topic. I am a very persistent royal pain in the a$$ to major newspapers by demanding corrections (and not getting them) along with occasional unproductive complaints to the Press Council – they don’t want any part of challenging their funders on climate change!
My satisfaction comes from knowing that each publisher, editor, reporter and opinion columnist knows in very precise layman’s terms just how dishonest their crap really is! My latest crusade was to document the stupidity of the recent ‘hottest year ever’ articles. (Their answer – if the New York Times or NASA lies to us its not our problem – go complain to them. So much for journalistic integrity.)
Bishop Hill, Climate etc., Climate Audit and WUWT are also on the regular reading list. Climate etc. and the Bishop are tops!
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Dagfinn
“This is a false dichotomy.” Exactly. A polarized issue, which is good for extremists on either side, sensasionalist media and, recently, those who make living off clickbait.
↧
Comment on Open thread by R. Gates
“So this is nothing to do with climate change but our effect as the dominant species on others who live on this planet.”
_____
This really is the essence of the Anthropocene, as climate change is only one of a multitude of effects.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
I began in the early 80s as a warmist, blaming the human race for changes in the climate.
I knew absolutely ZERO about what was actually going on.
In the late 80s I saw two articles in the paper – the Harrisburg Patriot News. One article concerned scientists discussing what they had learned about El-nino. The other had to do with hurricanes, in which they were curious as to why they were behaving the way they were.
Now, all I have is a degree in geology and a mind that soaks up information like a sponge. So the thought came to me: HOW could they be blaming humans for global warming, if they don’t even know how El-nino events and hurricanes interact?
I’ve learned a hell of a lot since then. Even more so once I began voicing my educated opinion- to be attacked by hystericysts. The more they have attacked, the more I have expanded my knowledge base.
I found WUWT almost the day Anthony put it up. I found john cook’s site almost the same time. It became obvious very quickly who was being honest, and who was not. The political / ideological posturing by warmists is all too obvious. The lack of… sorry, I have to say it, Intelligence, by many who attack me where I post my own writings, speaks very badly for the upcoming generations who have been badly misled. People who believe the Earth’s average temperature has gone up 2C since 2000; people who refuse to look at government databases which verify that hurricanes and tornadoes DO NOT heed CO2 levels. People who are afraid of ONE warm day in January, and then fall silent when double-digit below-zero temperatures hit the next week. People who can’t make the effort to Look at past climate history and the research which supports it.
The more things have changed, the more they stay the same. We’re heading into a new cooling cycle and I will BET you a cookie most of those who shriek about ‘man-made’ Crap knew just as well as the rest of us that it was coming.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by JustinWonder
JCH
“January 2015 appears to be 2nd warmest January in the instrument record.”
Yesterday was the hottest day ever – over the last two days.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Brandon Shollenberger
richardcfromnz:
<blockquote>3) Going farther away from the 3 e.g. CORUMBA BRAZIL, 362.68 km away and farther still, becomes less and less relevant and more and more removed from the microclimate of Puerto Casado UNLESS the test in 2) is carried out and satisfied for “remote” stations.</blockquote>
BEST uses the nearest 300 stations within <b>2500km</b>. That likely means far more than the three stations you list would be used. Individuals ones might not get as much weight in the calculations as the others since BEST de-weights stations by distance, but the total effect of them could easily be greater than the effect of the three stations you mention.
That said, it's important to understand stations don't need to cover 20 years on either side like your restriction implies. Breakpoints can be estimated in the BEST homogenization process with far less than 40 years of overlap. There are probably nearby stations which were used you didn't list.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Craig Loehle
I commented in the earlier denizens thread but some updates. As mentioned there, I have Ph.D. in natural resource management (forestry, modeling, ecology) and now have 149 publications–this means I can tell the difference between the usual case and anything I submit related to climate change. Nasty responses by reviewers.
I have always been rather prone to being unconventional, not taking anyone’s word for it. This actually crystalized around the acid rain issue in the 1980s, where I saw conclusions being drawn from studies that were completely not implied by their data. From this I became by default skeptical of any mass movement or consensus–which makes me the most senior skeptic around, I think.
Having done various sorts of modeling (simulation, population models, stability analyses, fractal models, statistical models) and having seen people who just throw any old equation in to make something work, I don’t believe anything about a “model” unless there is a clear explication of it and unless it works well. I have found that with very elegant models, there is often a simplifying assumption that the community of modelers doesn’t think about much but which if you relax it everything about the results changes. For example, the elegant epidemiological models used for mad cow disease policy in England (which was to isolate and cull herds) cost lots of money, but left out the possibility of vaccination, which then of course was not an option even when farmers wanted to try it to save their herds. I showed in two papers that the paradox of animals apparently moving to worse habitat could be explained if the assumption that all individuals were identical (usually made in population models) was relaxed and if the costs of conflict were counted.
The number of simplifying assumptions in climate science is not small and they never want to examine them. If you bring them up it is like you are farting at the garden party.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by omanuel
Climategate and official responses to Climategate guided me back to hints Sir Fred Hoyle (astronomer, astro-physicist, cosmologist) and Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda (nuclear, geo-chemist) left behind about changes in nuclear and space physics after WWII, . . .
Changes that blocked understanding of Earth’s heat source, solar energy:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy_For_Review.pdf
The manuscript is open for on-line review. Criticisms, corrections or comments sent to my email will be answered and improve the paper.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by Roger Sowell
@jim2, I invite you to read this article, TANP Part 2, regarding nuclear power plants that export power, and load-following.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-truth-about-nuclear-power-part-two.html
Also, importing nuclear power in Italy is highly controversial with many Italians opposed. If nuclear plants were forced to load-follow instead of operate as base-load, the sales price per kWh generated would skyrocket. This is a known fact, and is the primary reason few (if any) nuclear plants operate in load-following mode.
The effect, one among many, of nuclear power exported by France to other countries is the other countries must cut back their own generating plants at night. This, in effect, subsidizes the nuclear plants by imposing startup and shutdown costs on the receiving countries. Or, if not shutdown and startup, there are costs associated with ramping up and down.
↧
Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison
The impacts of climate change are minor even when wildly overestimated. Yet climate change the economics of fossil fuels – and specifically coal fired electricity – dominate the space for policy development. Leading to neglect of far more critical and tractable processes for decades.
Even then the contribution of emissions from electricity generation are the minor part of a minor problem.
The best responses to climate change involve building societal resilience in ways that are not merely compatible with emissions mitigation – but absolutely essential in a broad strategy involving multiple gases, aerosols, population and conservation. The oddness of the climate war is that there is a pervasive progressive politics that is horrendously misguided on both science and policy – but they are utterly convinced of their righteousness and perspicacity. This seems the main barrier to development of rational policy.
Randy the video guy exemplifies this with his silly and pointless labelling.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by nottawa rafter
It was about the period. Ike or JFK or LBJ by the WWII generation, not my generation. The distrust started with kids of LBJ then spread to all facets of society to any and all future presidents.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
