micro – I used Oracle SQLPlus extensively in the past. What I like about R is the awesome graphics packages. It make easy to show results graphically, which is much the way I think.
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jim2
↧
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by Steven Mosher
“You don’t know it beause there is no sign of it on any official temperature curve issued by GISS, NCDC, HadCRUT or Brkeley. Berkeley lacks it because when they compiled their data they made a special effort to exclude all satellite data from it. Wonder why they did that. ”
1. We compile our data for the temperatures at 2 meters taken by thermometers.
2. Satellite “data” doesnt exist for air temperature at 2 meters over the periods you discuss. It does not exist for history before that time period.
a) satellite data is the output of brightness at the sensor and a physical
model. It is NOT a measurement of air temps at the surface
b) One satellite series does provide an air temp estimate at 2meters. AIRS
this series is short and starts after 2000. The estimate of the air surface
temps relies on several models including a first guess based on NCEP
which itself is derived from the station data we use.
c). satellite estimates of air temps are a single time of day measurment.
air temps from thermometers are typically minimum, maximum and average.
3. No specific effort was made to EXCLUDE satellite data. There is no
applicable data. You cannot average temperatures taken at two meters by thermometers with temperature data at several kilometers above the surface.
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jim2
:)
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jim2
We were discussing the case that government doesn’t spend our money with care. Despite the Denizen’s of the Dismal Science bloviation above, it’s my judgement that the wife and the hedge fund manager, typically, will be more cautious with OPM than the government. They have more consequences waiting for them if they mismanage. The government is impervious to consequences – they make the law and they have the big guns.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Just lay there and take it you weaklings.
The Elephant flood... All but forgotten now:
<a href="https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1908&dat=19811015&id=rpYfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TNQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1451,1207065&hl=en" rel="nofollow">The elephant flood... All but forgotten now:</a>
↧
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by jim2
The field defined by a parabola is not a probability field.
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by AK
<blockquote>Trenberth and Hurrell wrote this in 1992 (published 1994)</blockquote>PDF <a href="http://echorock.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/trenberth94_decadal_atmocn_variations.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> for anybody needing through the paywall.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
Here is the WSJ AGW indoctrination article:
Schoolroom Climate Change Indoctrination
In one assignment, students measure the size of their family’s carbon footprint and suggest ways to shrink it.
By Paul H. Tice
May 27, 2015 7:00 p.m. ET
While many American parents are angry about the Common Core educational standards and related student assessments in math and English, less attention is being paid to the federally driven green Common Core that is now being rolled out across the country. Under the guise of the first new K-12 science curriculum to be introduced in 15 years, the real goal seems to be to expose students to politically correct climate-change orthodoxy during their formative learning years.
The Next Generation of Science Standards were released in April 2013. Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted them, including my state of New Jersey, which signed on in July 2014 and plans to phase in the new curriculum beginning with the 2016-2017 school year. The standards were designed to provide students with an internationally benchmarked science education.
While publicly billed as the result of a state-led process, the new science standards rely on a framework developed by the Washington, D.C.-based National Research Council. That is the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences that works closely with the federal government on most scientific matters.
All of the National Research Council’s work around global warming proceeds from the initial premise of its 2011 report, “America’s Climate Choices” which states that “climate change is already occurring, is based largely on human activities, and is supported by multiple lines of scientific evidence.” From the council’s perspective, the science of climate change has already been settled. Not surprisingly, global climate change is one of the disciplinary core ideas embedded in the Next Generation of Science Standards, making it required learning for students in grade, middle and high school.
The National Research Council framework for K-12 science education recommends that by the end of Grade 5, students should appreciate that rising average global temperatures will affect the lives of all humans and other organisms on the planet. By Grade 8, students should understand that the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels is a major factor in global warming. And by Grade 12, students should know that global climate models are very effective in modeling, predicting and managing the current and future impact of climate change. To give one example of the council’s reach, these climate-change learning concepts have been incorporated almost verbatim into the New Jersey Department of Education model science curriculum.
Many of the background materials and classroom resources used by instructors in teaching the new curriculum are sourced from government agencies. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency has an array of ready-to-download climate-change primers for classroom use by teachers, including handouts on the link between carbon dioxide and average global temperatures and tear sheets on the causal relationship between greenhouse-gas emissions and rising sea levels.
Similarly, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Energy Department have their own Climate Literacy & Energy Awareness Network, or Clean, which serves as an online portal for the distribution of digital resources to help educators teach about climate change. One such learning module requires students to measure the size of their family’s carbon footprint and come up with ways to shrink it.
Relying on a climate-change curriculum and teaching materials largely sourced from federal agencies—particularly those of the current ideologically driven administration—raises a number of issues. Along with the undue authoritative weight that such government-produced documents carry in the classroom, most of the work is one-sided and presented in categorical terms, leaving no room for a balanced discussion. Moreover, too much blind trust is placed in the predictive power of long-range computer simulations, despite the weak forecasting track record of most climate models to date.
This is unfortunate because the topic of man-made global warming, properly taught, would present many teachable moments and provide an example of the scientific method in action. Precisely because the science of climate change is still just a theory, discussion would help to build student skills in critical thinking, argumentation and reasoning, which is the stated objective of the new K-12 science standards.
For instance: Why has the planet inconveniently stopped warming since the late 1990s even as carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise? How reliable are historical measurements of average global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when, before the 1950s, much of the data are interpolated from such diverse sources as weather balloons, kites, cloud observations, primordial tree rings and Antarctic ice bubbles?
How statistically significant is a 1.4-degree Fahrenheit increase in average global surface temperatures since 1880 for a 4.6 billion-year-old planet with multiple ecosystems and a surface area of some 200 million square miles? How dangerous is the current level of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere, when 400 parts per million expressed as a percentage of the volume of the atmosphere would equate to only 0.04% or approximately zero?
Employing such a Socratic approach to teaching climate change would likely lead to a rational and thought-provoking classroom debate on the merits of the case. However, that is not the point of this academic exercise—which seems to be to indoctrinate young people by using K-12 educators to establish the same positive political feedback loop around global warming that has existed between the federal government and the nation’s colleges and universities for the past two decades.
Mr. Tice works in investment management and is a former Wall Street energy research analyst.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Now, that was a good read.
↧
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by micro6500
I’ll have to read the pdf, here’s the wiki page
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation it says it was named in 1997, “The Pacific (inter-)decadal oscillation was named by Steven R. Hare, who noticed it while studying salmon production pattern results in 1997.[1]” I think Pekka mentioned the paper was from 1992.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Wojick
One wonders if the ERF of increased CO2 can cause cooling?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ron Clutz
Agree. Observational evidence employing modern technology is starting to give us answers, and will be more convincing as time goes on.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/27/evidence-is-mounting-oceans-make-climate/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Ron Clutz
Aristotle (384 to 322 BC) said:
“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/an-alternate-climate-encyclical/
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Bad Andrew
Almost unbelievably from the Gay Marriage article: “reliability of feelings thermometers”
Can’t the data from them just be adjusted, then?
Gay Science, meet Climate Science.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Mark Silbert
Whatever, Don, sticks and stones and all that.
I did/do get your comment re. Brandon. I’ve had my own back and forth with him re. the book “Climate Change, The Facts” which he dismissed out of hand without reading. I even sent him a gift certificate to Mark Steyn’s store for him to get a copy.
In rereading your comment, I guess you weren’t actually equivalencing Mosher with McIntyre and Tol, so poor assumption on my part.
As for smart and honest people, I know a lot of very smart people and some of them are even honest, but when they act like jerks I tend to tune them out.
↧
Comment on Science: in the doghouse(?) by AK
<blockquote>I’ll have to read the pdf [...]</blockquote>To save you (possible) trouble, here are links to two ref's that I found worth chasing down:
<a href="http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/097/mwr-097-03-0163.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bjerknes J (1969)</a>
<a href="http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/097/mwr-097-03-0173.pdf" rel="nofollow">Namias J (1969)</a>
↧
Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by Pooh, Dixie
Beware the nose of the camel.
↧
↧
Comment on What would it take to convince you about global warming? by Pooh, Dixie
This camel wants to control (“regulate”) everything and every one. Except itself, of course.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Kip Hansen
This story: “Can science make you less sexist while you sleep?” linked above as http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/05/28/can-science-make-you-less-sexist-while-you-sleep/ is unadulterated junk psychology.
Read yesterday’s column here, in which Richard Horton points out junk medical science consisting of studies “Afflicted…..with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
The bias-cure study meets the bill on all counts.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
There is now a rebuttal paper to Brockman’s. As the world turns…
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
