I can see you torturing the data.
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by JCH
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by NOAA Study Takes World ‘by Storm': No Global Warming Pause! | I World New
[…] (because she’s the least identified as a “denier”) so far is Judith Curry’s “Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming?” She points out that the datasets on which Karl et al. rely have greater uncertainties than […]
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Philip Lee
Yes. But this topic is a deep one and not likely to become of wide use by mathematicians absent the finding of a serious defect in an area of important and accepted mathematics.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Jim D
McKitrick doesn’t say it is wrong to make the K15 correction. He goes half way to demonstrating why it should be corrected with his first example table, but he misses having a column which is the apparent temperature from his mix of observations that would start near 4.0 with ships dominating, and end near 3.0 as the buoy observation dominate later despite the real temperature going from 3 to 4. In his example, a correction is clearly needed for the changing mix of observations. Why didn’t he say that? Instead he goes off on some tangent.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
I know this is probably pointless, but I hate how people use “ad hom” or, argument ad hominem, whenever anyone says anything negative about them. That is not what it means. Argument ad hominem is when you use an attack on a person to respond to their argument(s). If I say I don’t want to spend money to read a paper by Nuccitelli and ATTP because they’re stinkybutts, I am insulting them. I’m not using my insults to respond to their arguments though.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
Not sure thats ad hom. More just a well earned insult. And ad hom is dismissing an argument because of an association with a disliked but unrelated group. Rud is referencing his opinion of your track record with related work.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Jim D
It may seem like Waterloo to Watts, but he is Napoleon in this one.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics
Oh, I see, a discussion about whether it’s an ad hom or just an insult. I would argue that essentially dismissing a paper because of who the authors are qualifies as an ad hom, but I’m certainly not going to waste any more of my time discussing it. Keep up the good work, though. Whatever you do, don’t do anything to drag the online climate debate out of the gutter.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
I went and listened to the assault on science radio show on CBC Radio that you linked to. I intend up until 36 minutes. There was a hug amount of what I can only call whining among government scientists about the closure of what were essentially giant archives. According to the government, all duplicates have been removed and discarded and most the collection is being digitized. Redundant services all over Canada have been consolidated and libraries that are essentially archives used by maybe 4-6 people a year are being rationalized. All data is going to be digitized and available on line. A lot of government librarians lost their jobs. One scientist interviewed complained vociferously about how he went looking for a set of 12 documents he found in the paper archives a few years ago with the help of government librarians and he could find only two under the new system. Yet the digitization process is not finished. Second he used the old data to find proof that cod spawned inland and this was a great discover for him. Yet, the program then spend an inordinate amount of time stating how you cannot do science by looking at old records, you have to go out and do your own observational studies. (Why didn’t you go out and look for cod spawning in inland waters? Could it be because the government management of cod fisheries has destroyed them?) I stopped listening when the person being interviewed brought up how science is being destroyed today solely because the oil industry (!!!) has funded clever anti science programs to stop a proper response to anthropogenic global warming, which is a great truth of science, on a par with heliocentrism, for which “there is overwhelming and incontrovertible” evidence. So it’s all about those evil oil barons ruling the world again. I will comment on how the Canadian government has been undergoing a major and very much needed pruning as we tackle our debt and eliminate our deficit. (Something the USA is going to have to do as well.) A lot of small people have lost their government jobs including many in CBC radio and among the sheltered, extremely well paid and well supplied government scientists whose positions have always been the envy of the rest of academia. The Conservative government in Canada does not accept the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. They also support big oil as a way to boost our economy and make us energy self sufficient since Canada has more oil than Saudi Arabis. Since they are in power by a very healthy majority I would submit the current Canadian backlash in science is due to public perception that the stubborn leftist in government science are clinging to the alarmist position on global warming along with an equally stubborn refusal to accept that we have been living beyond our means and we need to cut back government and get out of debt. These same people screamed bloody murder about how Harper was destroying our protection for Canadian waterways when he also got rid of a bunch of old outdated legislation having to with signage on any drainage ditch big enough to float a canoe lest a passing voyageur bump his head. Canadians also don’t want more taxes, especially carbon taxes. We are also seeing the results of leftist green energy policies in the form of skyrocketing electricity even though we have more hydro electricity than anyone else on earth because the socialist provincial government are hell bent on subsidizing wind and solar. Manitoba has just been turned into Minnesota’s back up battery for when their wind power isn’t turning so that during such times we will be selling them power at one quarter of what it will cost us and ordinary Manitobans will be paying for that with dramatically increased utility rates. The majority of Canadians do not support government tax money being used to support a far CBC, a left institution that has less than a 5% share of viewers (and that before they stopped broadcasting hockey) they are facing even more pain as Canada gets rid of its debt. CBC, being a socialist and far left organization that has also been hit with major cutbacks, is happy to join them in the scientists’ whine fest.
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Don Monfort
Thanks, John. That certainly inspires confidence.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ristvan
JC, thanks. Have now read the new paper on Monckton.
ATTP, I am now certain we basically agree. I criticized r sub t in my guest post, also. You used the Argo data to show Monckton had argued for aninappropriately high value. I just used TCR/ECS. Diverting from Moncktons symbology which you kept in your paper, I also argued that “f” was too low. The argument Monckton made is silly. Bode feedback is well behaved until f>0.75. IPCC ECS of 3 inplies Bode f of 0.65 if Planck grey earth response is taken as 1.2, which Lindzen does and I adopt. No Bode problem. The Monckton paper was just wrong on that. However, I do think a better value is around 0.25-0.3. Made the arguments and physical evidence in my guest post critique. Cloud feedback near zero, water vapor feedback near halved from the consensus +0.5. Plug revised r (transience fraction) and f into Moncktons equation, and out pops ECS ~1.7, in line with all the newer energy budget papers including Lewis and Curry 2014.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by ...and Then There's Physics
Okay, we broadly agree. A nice change, I guess?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Brandon S? (@Corpus_no_Logos)
Sorry aaron, but I have to say it. Ninja’d!
Anders, if you want to be hostile and rude and intentionally interpret people’s comments in ways that could be ad hominems rather than any other way, you can. But if you’re going to do so, you really shouldn’t say things like:
Keep up the good work, though. Whatever you do, don’t do anything to drag the online climate debate out of the gutter.
Because some people might take you seriously. They might think the entire goal behind your commenting style is to ensure things stay in the gutter. And I couldn’t blame them if they did. It sure seems that way at times.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron
Havent read the article, but makes me wonder what might be done with materials combined with a simple closed evaporative cooling.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Don Monfort
Here is a cogent comment from WUWT that puts the paper it in the proper perspective, yimmy:
“Jquip
June 6, 2015 at 12:16 pm
It needs to be repeated often: This paper is about establishing a new data product. That is, it is focused solely on the errors and inadequacies baked into the HadNMAT2 data product. And if this paper is held as legitimate, it does not speak to global warming as such: It is a refutation of all previous uses of HadNMAT2. Despite what the authors would like to claim, their paper cannot speak to overall global warming when it is solely and strictly a refutation of — and a creation of a new — single data product amongst many.
Much like the ‘ensemble averages’ of GCMs used by the IPCC, we have an ensemble problem with the data products. They cannot, quite obviously, all be the most accurate. So we’re faced with either refuting all but a single data product or refuting any that are inconsistent with the experimentally demonstrable correctives employed in the Karl paper, or refuting the Karl paper — and the validity of peer review along with it.
If this is unpalatable, and I suggest that it is, then the gold standard in Climate Science is to take an unweighted ensemble average of the data products to produce the data product. And that ensemble average, and all its ranges, is then the only valid input to apply to various GCM runs.
And, of course, it remains that if they can’t get the ensemble average of data products to produce a trend that doesn’t straddle nought, then there is no manner in which to claim that there is any warming at all from within the standard practices — valid or invalid — of Climate Science.”
Can you say why this new data product is any better than any of the others, yimmy? Start with UAH and RSS.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Tony Banton
I it not a “no-brainer”?
Given the preponderance of buoys ovcer ship reports now compared with the past, it follows that the cooling bias be corrected. Or else the record has been artificially cooled.
Whether you take the ships or the buoys individually the trend is the same.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Salvatore del Prete
↧
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by aplanningengineer
ATP- it’s challenging issue and we all have our biases. Sometimes I don’t get you, but you could be right here. I will try to be sensitives and aware of the concerns you express there.
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by ...and Then There's Physics
Okay, that’s a better response than I was expecting, which is a pleasant surprise :-) . Overall, I think it would be better if we all simply tried to present arguments that can be judged. If you don’t like how someone judges an argument with which you might associate, you can either decide that maybe the other person has a point and that your argument isn’t as strong as you think, or you can decide that they’re wrong and counter – or ignore – their argument.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by jim2
Mosher – if sat data is that bad, why does it agree with radiosonde data so well?
Also, PTRs in modern weather stations measure voltage and current as a function of sensor resistance. Each has to be calibrated independently in order to determine a set of calibration coefficients applicable only to that individual sensor.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
