AK,
Noted, and thanks. Technology fulfills need and at times creates (see cell phones and internet, so why not alternative energy, eh?).
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by waltheof
Sorry Joshua
I must have unfairly mistaken you with one of the others.
Will check more carefully in future.
But back to my post does my simplistic explanation of my concern make sense?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
I second the nomination.
Rud would be a very good spokesperson for the fraud and fabrication crowd. Plus, he could plug his books a couple of times in front of a national audience.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jakehearts the accountant
Energiewende has been so successful they decided to build at least a half dozen brown coal power plants over the coming decade. France had the better plan. 75% of their electricity source is derived from nuclear energy. It’s plentiful and cheap and they’re the leading exporters in Europe. Meanwhile Germans are laying 41 cents per kWh.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
Add, Michael Mann
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Judith –
Since you’re into dirt dishing and personality politics:
↧
Comment on Week in review by stefanthedenier
Salvatore, do you really know what climate is?! You are referring to the phony global warming / when talking about climate…
Sahara and Brazil have same amount of CO2, but completely different climates! Therefore: CO2 has nothing to do with the climate -H2O regulates the climate! If you don’t know what’s good or bad climate – ask the trees!!! One oaktree knows more about the climate than all of you Skeptics &Warmist combined… What’s the IQ of an oaktree?.. even the earthworm knows more about the climate, than you guys… Tragic…
↧
Comment on Week in review by Steven Mosher
Ya Joshua.
When we are discussing the supposed fraud in NOAA’s adjsutments for GHCN -M, Rud finds a hook to discuss two datasets not even in use by climate science.
Even here there is no case of fraud. Changes are made. They are described. but look at maine.. those sneaky bastards are slipping some fraud into the records of Maine.
The cool thing is the publications lay out the changes and the places that changed the most
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/GrDD-Transition.pdf
Maine being one of them.
Its genius. Sneak some adjustements in and then show people what you changed.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Wagathon
“In 2013 flowers encased in amber were found and dated 100 million years before present. The amber had frozen the act of sexual reproduction in the process of taking place. Microscopic images showed tubes growing out of pollen and penetrating the flower’s stigma. The pollen was sticky, suggesting it was carried by insects.” (wiki)
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by JustinWonder
Here is an interesting article about arctic sea ice from the Feb. 14 issue of “The Economist”:
↧
Comment on Week in review by stefanthedenier
Joshua,
do you still have problems with the phony ”skeptics”?! You have to know that: -the skeptics are like the distant stars… not one of them is very bright, but there are lots and lots of them…
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Yes, looks like the jig is up for Willie Soon. His employers and paper publishers are looking into false disclosures.
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by John B. Lomax
I think that I understand that making the TOB adjustment is worthwhile for the weathermen who are concerned about the change in weather from yesterday until today. It would seem to me that the TOB adjustment should NOT be used by anyone concerned with climate over decades to centuries. Just use the max/min data. The rare pair of identical adjacent data points may well be an accurate representation of reality in a century of data.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Bob Greene
Zeke. Interesting, but…
You cannot read the MMTS thermometer shown in Figure 3 to any accuracy that you can make meaningful estimates of differences of 0.15° or 0.45°. Your measurement error just isn’t that good, no matter how many million data points you have.
For all the comparisons, I never saw any statistics on standard deviations, means and statistical tests for differences of means. Surely, you aren’t suggesting that SD=0. Are you saying that in your examinations of data
Why doesn’t today’s missed high or overestimated high, or low, average out over a period of several days? If you are saying it doesn’t, then you should have some statistics that show it doesn’t.
TOB adjustments may be a very valid data treatment. However, it would never fly in the manner presented in anything I’ve been involved with for since about 1975. As I mentioned in a comment to Mosher, would you be willing to sign off on this and accept legal liability? Remember, these “adjustments” and data treatments are the basis for controlling the global economy.
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Steven Mosher
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Steven Mosher
NOAA make no adjustments for UHI
GISS do
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Steven Mosher
here
ftp://205.167.25.101/pub/data/ushcn/papers/karl-etal1986.pdf
orginal paper.
variances and standard error are there.
The only uncertainty question I could see looking at this back in 2007 and 2008 was how this uncertainty was carried into the FINAL analysis
That is, when you adjust there is an uncertainty that should be carried forward.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Zeke Hausfather
Mike Jonas,
Look at Figure 1. TOBs changes didn’t end in the 1980s; some stations are still changing today. Part of it is that volunteer observers often stick with the time they have always done observations, and changes occur when the observer retires and someone else takes over.
The next article will cover pairwise homogenization, which covers both MMTS transitions and UHI. The former is the larger of the two biases, interestingly enough, at least since 1960 or so.
Mosh,
NOAA makes no explicit adjustment for UHI. The PHA does end up effectively removing most of the UHI signal, however, as discussed in our paper.
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Zeke Hausfather
Curious George,
That is rather the point of the analysis I perform using CRN data. Having hourly data lets you set any time of observation you want for the same station, effectively making any station “side-by-side” itself for the purposes of the analysis.
↧
Comment on Understanding Time of Observation Bias by Zeke Hausfather
Timothy,
Because traditional min-max thermometers only give you a single minimum and maximum value for each day, tavg is traditionally defined as (tmax + tmin) / 2. While an average of hourly readings is strictly speaking more accurate, it would introduce problems when trying to compare time series of min/max data with hourly data.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
