Lance: Very well put!!!
Comment on Denizens II by WA777
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Pooh, Dixie
David: You may do very well in the financial industry. You handle ground truth well. The truth will out; you may bet on it.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by A. Voip
From what I heard that wasn’t until the Rolling Stones played Altamont Racetrack, Dec. 6th 1969. What do I remember now at my age though?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by richardcfromnz
Brandon
>”BEST uses the nearest 300 stations within 2500km.”
Yes I realize this but for this case study it makes sense to start at the nearest (“nearby” – Zeke) and work out to look at the quality, or otherwise, of the “regional expectation” for the stations with highest weighting. Preferably well within 100km (2500km is absurd), but when that’s not available then it’s first nearest and so on.
>”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,”
Yes, as above.
>”but the total effect of them could easily be greater than the effect of the three stations you mention.”
If so, the local climatology is discarded, all local climate signals destroyed.
>”That said, it’s important to understand stations don’t need to cover 20 years on either side like your restriction implies.”
The case study is Puerto Casado 1971. As I’ve explained upthread, the earlier segment is 20 years (1951 – 1971), the later segment longer. I’ve used 20 yrs because Zeke has stated explicitly that the means of the target segment are applied to the regional expectation, the earlier segment is 20 yrs the later longer so 20 it is for the purposes of this case study. But when you look at the comparator station segments that correspond to the target segments (e.g. 1951 – 1971) the quality of the comparators is not good (to say the least) by this methodology.
>”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.”
Well yes. And other methodologies far less too. R&S93 stipulates 12 and 24 months either side for the adjustment statistical accept/reject criteria.
Except again, Zeke has explicitly stated that it is the segment means rather than the start or end points of the segments (e.g. 24 months as above) that BEST applies. Zeke:
“…..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.”
If there is methodology that statistically determines break adjustments with only 24 months of data (2 yr overlap) from a handful of local stations (i.e. “neighbouring”, “nearby”) and the odd remote then going to 10, 20 or 40 yr overlap with “remote” comparator stations up to 2500km away is bizarre.
In the NZ controversy, It is NIWA’s departure from the R&S93 method (along with non-UHI adjustment and annual data instead of monthly) i.e. preferring remote stations and say 10 yr overlaps to neighbouring stations and 2 yr overlap, that produces a trend in the NZ 7SS that is 3 times greater than by applying the R&S93 criteria of neighbouring and 2 yr overlap. as followed by NZCSC in their ‘Statistical Audit’ of the 7SS. An audit which is now in the literature as De Freitas, Dedekind, and Brill (2014), as I’ve mentioned previously, despite the judge’s decision in NZCSET v NIWA.
Cross-posted at Climate Conversation Group here:
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Uncle Robot
Digging out from record snowstorms in Boston and thinking about the collision between record ocean warmth in the north Atlantic and Arctic air descending upon NE. As I biked home this morning it was -2 with wind chills making it 10 lower but the temperature was 20 degrees higher in Fairbanks today. Reality bites.
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by curryja
I just got bitten by reality also; my plane to DC has been cancelled, I am unable to attend the NARUC meeting, will phone in for the ‘debate’. Hopefully this will work, we’ll see.
↧
Comment on Week in review by johanna
Thanks, Mike. That makes more sense.
I always get annoyed when people moan about the impact of home aircon on the grid. I can attest that mine, which works a treat even if it is 40C outside, has hardly any effect on my bills. Whoever invented inverter aircon deserves a medal!
↧
Comment on Open thread by R Graf
Don, I agree with your comment on CA, and appreciate the tongue-in-cheek, but they are taking action now saying that 97% of people in the know support proof of harm happening now. If we allow a paper to stand that even proponents agree does not support its conclusion, that has an invalid equation, (if all agree), when are we going to speak up? Nic spoke up against the majesty.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher
richardcfromnz
Here is the problem.
1. you have ad hoc rules.
2. you havent done any sensitivity analysis of your adhoc rules.
3. you havent tested your method on other parts of the world
4. you havent tested your method against synthetic data to see how it performs.
very simply.
The NZ NWS had humans sit down and select stations.
They had humans make decisions about adjustments.
A second group also had humans sit down and select stations
and make adjustments
Then the groups used different methods.
from memory I believe one group got .9C of warming and another group
got .28C
One of charters was to address skeptical concerns that people were cherry picking data. The other concern was that analysts were biased in their adjustments. It doesnt surprise me that you would comeup with lower
numbers than the NWS.
So we did two things
A) we use all the data.
B) we use an “adjustment” approach that allows us to.
1. establish rules and use them for every case
2. Change those rules in a SYSTEMATIC fashion
to see how much they matter. For example,
what happens if we change the min stations to 50
what happens if we change the max to 200
what happens if we change the distance to X km
3. test on the whole world
4. test against synthetic data.
Our answer for NZ was .6C or so.
Finally,
“2) Given 1), the 3 “neighbour” stations above MUST represent the NEAREST climatology to Puerto Casado. ”
The climate is different than the weather.
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Robert Grumbine
NARUC = National Association of Regulatory Utility Comissioners?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Matthew R Marler
TonyB: Does this debate move us one iota more forward as to what has happened in the past, why it happened and whether it will occur again in an even more exaggerated fashion, thanks to co2 and its supposed forcings?
I can’t tell. Can you tell me how iotas are measured?
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth: raw versus adjusted temperature data by Steven Mosher
you need to look at how the uncertainty is calculated.
gues what?
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
R Graf, my guess is that Lewis and McSteve have tested the correlation, found their idea not to work, while just reproving M&F’s results, and so they are now regrouping to try a different argument against M&F. Their assumptions neglecting that dN term will have come back to bite them.
↧
↧
Comment on Open thread by jim2
The cost of load following varies with the design of the reactor. Technology with make just about everything you believe about nuclear energy false – in the future or even now in some cases.
From the article:
…
Also fast reactors have a strong negative temperature coefficient (the reaction slows as the temperature rises unduly), an inherent safety feature, and the basis of automatic load following in many new designs.
…
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Fast-Neutron-Reactors/
↧
Comment on Open thread by angech2014
Steven Mosher | February 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm | Reply
“1. they are not model forecasts. They are hindcasts.”
Who would have thought when programming the models that they could hindcast so successfully.
Ie they were aware of Pinitubo.
They were aware of the unexpected warming in the 40’s
They were able to do the big jump in 1980 and the 1997 super El Nino.
I would love tho see a program that could hindcast or forecast successfully that El Nino in particular.
Since the programmes cannot do this, the past was programmed into the settings was it not?
It had to be because if the climate models disagreed with the past as much as they do with the present no one would have anything to do with them.
Like Stock Market and Racing Computer guides they will “hindcast” perfectly because they want people to buy their programmes and use them.
They are hindsets not hindcasts.
As I have mentioned previously when a program gets predictions 100% right 100% of the time there is no currency to such a program . You are being had, Feynman. Since there is no value in them why bother using them as an argument?
↧
Comment on Denizens II by curryja
Yes
↧
Comment on Open thread by Jim D
You have to follow Nic’s logic through which nobody in all these long discussions has done. If dF was as highly correlated with dT as he asserts, M&F would not have found the low correlation in 15-year periods. Their result proves they are not doing what Nic thinks they are doing, so he has to use their data to show what he means, because so far the results presented with the data are against him. Like I said, it is probably slowly dawning on him that the fiasco was his own. Lucky he didn’t make a big deal all over the place about it. Perhaps by just keeping quiet, people will forget. I say that if you are at CA and you care, ask him to put the data where his mouth is. Hold him accountable with data. Do the audit.
↧
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Eliza
I think it should be recognized that probably the one site that has done the most damage to the AGW matra is not here, or WUWT or Climate Audit, it is Steven Goddards site real science who has carefully documented all the fraud and lies through data analysis of raw data, adjustments and yes newspaper articles from the past and present time, carefully documenting every statement made by these fraudsters, and of course Paul Homewood, more recently and Mahorasy in Australia.. To Mr M. Mann I say at least I know that my research work will be remembered (it already has a very high citation rate but real), whereas yours is going to be included in a list that will be remembered only as shameful fraud. You and your deceitful work will NEVER be recognized long term (although it is now).
↧
Comment on Open thread by JCH
I think they’re just celebrating Presidents Day. Or, maybe there was an emergency on the Mann 98 audit.
↧
Comment on Denizens II by Mark Silbert
Thanks for sharing John. The photos are great and your hobby is fascinating. There is a display at the Tate Modern in Paris of refuse recovered from the river Seine. Yours is better and deserves to be in a museum as well.
↧
