[Jim D] [O]ne meme assumes that every mainstream climate scientist is motivated to get a particular result either by funding or fear of being fired or ostracized.
[AK] That’s not a meme, it’s a straw man. […] The overwhelming evidence is that the scientific establishment for climate research has been badly infested and perverted by ideologues.
“But we have also noted that the likelihood that people will pass on information is based strongly on the likelihood of its eliciting an emotional response in the recipient, ”
How’s righteous indigenous, I think that qualifies.
“For instance, if there never was a strong AGW effect in the first place (much lower than natural variability, say) then to declare that GST observations are explained by AGW ‘pausing’, would not be a reflection of reality. ”
I suffer from this,years of looking at the data leaves me wondering if there is any warming, and what we’re seeing is just ocean heat moving around, so I take a pragmatic position, I don’t deny the pause or even an increase in average temp, and keep digging. Hey I have a day job.
The average day to day change of maximum daily temp is a couple thousandth of a degree random walk around 0.0F, but the distribution of max temp over a full year has changed, if you plot the daily (as opposed to the annual) average day to day change for a year you get a sine wave, the slope from the max positive change to the max negative change has changed over the years, but there looks to be an inflection point in the last handful of years. Also the positive slope(max negative daily change to max positive change) is different from the negative slope(max positive daily change to the max negative change).
Lots more to learn that just averaging the infilled homogenized mean temp.
GST is the least insightful view of surface temps possible, and I’m not sure that isn’t intentional, it’s the easiest to spread that meme and by using mean temps, a wide range of distribution can become a warming trend.
“It’s tough, Don. People keep replying.”
You are their favorite foil, yimmy. Ask willy to explain that to you. Your pal willy secretly aspires to be the top foil, but he doesn’t have your work ethic and he can’t compete with your mastery of the dogmatic doggerel.
Rud
+1. This thing called the mind, dwelling in the person, is a messy wicked problem.
Richard
Since so much land temp measurement is just a measure of how much heat was let in or let out by cloud on a particular day where there happened to be people and a thermometer; and since a max or min on its own only tells you the story of a peak moment in a day…
Is the sow’s ear of temp record really worth all this silk purse stitching?
“Since so much land temp measurement is just a measure of how much heat was let in or let out by cloud on a particular day where there happened to be people and a thermometer; and since a max or min on its own only tells you the story of a peak moment in a day…
Is the sow’s ear of temp record really worth all this silk purse stitching?”
I think there’s still a lot to learn.
But more to your first point, my computer has been cranking away calculating clear sky solar joules for each station for every day of the year from 1931 to 2015, after a week and a half I have 74 million daily records calculated out of a possible ~130 million samples.
Once this finishes I can compare the energy to temperature increase, should tell me how cloudy it was on that day, a surface response factor.
At the current rate it has 3-4 more days of run time.
The trick is to persuade while remaining open to persuasion.
Who knew. /sarc. Humans have no innate sense of truth. We are superstitious creatures. Meme machines. We float memes in the hope of generating clicks, validation through +1’s, consensus.
Science, like democracy, does not come naturally to us. It has bloomed only rarely in human history when times were good enough that our superstitions could relax.
The demon obsessed Lewandowsky and Oreskes simply have no clue that their argument falsifies itself.
“The demon obsessed Lewandowsky and Oreskes simply have no clue that their argument falsifies itself.”
It’s hard to keep all of your facts straight, especially if logic isn’t your strong suit.
Though some in meme assured are
of a problem that plagueth us so
must tell the tale to you and me
at every opportunity.
… “the peer review has helped ensure a high degree of consensus ” [IPCC, John Houghton, 1990]
“helped”. iow, the fundamantal objective of Houghton and the IPCC all along has been to manufacture consensus, not be objective and honest. Making it the textbook case of institutional confirmation bias.
Oh, I just thought of the mechanism that would change the distribution as temps go up.
Rel humidity and nightly cooling. In the winter and spring most of the time rel humidity doesn’t get to 100%(at least in Ohio ), but going into summer almost every night rel humidity maxes out, that is definitely a nonlinear response to temp.
I have graph from my weather station, and you can see rel humidity track temps, until summer, and there you see it driven into the 100% line, until fall where it drops off the limit.
Jo$4ua, “I guess I’m a bit of a sticker. IMO, if someone is stating an opinion, they should state an opinion, not proclaim a fact; ”
Has anyone ever recommend remedial reading and comprehension to you?
“Skeptics generally agree that there has to be some human impact based on the physics,..”
Generally is a wiggle word as is “some” and are often associated with “opinions”. What you should do is assume all blog comments are opinions unless someone mentions that they are stating facts. That is a generally sound way of interpreting blog comments.
Back to the actual point, an Aug 2014 survey question, ” There is solid evidence the Earth is getting warmer….”
72 percent think there is “solid” evidence there is warming and 45% think either there is no warming or it is natural if there is, versus 46% that think there is “solid” evidence of man caused warming. Whether the Earth is warming or not depends on what start date you pick and what data you think is more “scientific” if you are so inclined or personal experience if you are not. (Remember they surveyed “normal”Americans bored enough to complete a survey). Not what I would consider a very scientific survey question, but that is what you posted. Oddly, about 50% of the respondents that had an opinion didn’t think humans where to blame for warming, solid or otherwise.
If you just glace at the UAH version 6 beta data, it is easy to see why some might not consider that to be “solid” evidence of warming if that happens to be their data of choice.
If you happen to use JimD as a source you would see that he goes to some length to enhance the evidence. He would be in the 46% group. To some, having to “enhance”, “adjust”, “tweak” etc. evidence tends to make it less “solid”. But respondents looking at longer term temperature anomaly would be more likely to agree there is more solid evidence of “warming”.
The average bored survey answering American doesn’t seem to have Lew and Cook on their favorites list it seems. It is fun to see how y’all interpret the numbers though.
> “look! A squirrel!
The only squirrel has been introduced that way:
The overwhelming evidence is that the scientific establishment for climate research has been badly infested and perverted by ideologues.
This squirrel has been introduced by pushing Jim D’s meme aside as a strawman, which is false. Judy’s “manfactured consensus” is based on that meme. The Auditor’s “fatwa” and “cleansing” are based on that meme. For more on the same:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fjudithcurry.com+conform
First search result: Are climate scientists being forced to toe the line?.
***
This reccuring appeal to conformism can easily turn conspirational if we add to it AK’s infestation and perversion memes. While the infestation may be spread by only a few “bad apples” (another meme), the end result is that mainstream science, as a whole, becomes perverted. Which means that AK’s rationalization is as cheap as his dogwhistled quantification.
One does not simply accuse mainstream science of being perverted and expect that only a few bad apples are affected by this perversion.
Jack Smith – could your problem be readily addressed for $100 to $400 with a UPS. uninterruptible power supply
Correction…
Paper mathematics is straight forward, which is a summary of my book titled “Global Warming Calculation and Projection” that was published in 2009. The book has been reviewed by over 8,000 people including the finest 100+ ……….
Jim2, great catch. The NAS problem that the government has spent many billions on better battery research, plus development and manufacturing grants and loan guarantees. Heck, my own company even got $2million for enhanced supercap carbons. (we succeeded). Did not save A123 or EnerVault ( my guest post on grid storage earlier this week).
Batteries are not a funding problem. $billions are thrown at them annually. They are a electrochemistry fundamentals problem. You can have high energy density at the expense of power density. You can have high power density at the expense of cycle life. You can have high cycle life at the expense of both energy and power density. You need some minimum of all three, well good luck. Cannot get there. A grass earing snake. Nevermind a little cost detail. You end up with Tesla and Chevy Volt. Both woefully inadequate
Numerous science papers were written using the standard SIDC sunspot numbers. These are now replaced by new WDC-SILSO ‘corrected’ sunspot numbers, using totally different listing scale. In addition conversion from the old numbers to new has been subject to a variable correction factor for whole of the historic data from 1700 to 2014.
Since the old numbers are not available any longer, and no conversion factor is available, I have normalised the new data to the old scale.
Purpose of this is that the papers and articles published before 1st July 2015, can be assessed against new ‘corrected’ and now recognised as the only valid sunspot numbers.
In this link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NEW-SSN-annual.htm
there is a graphic and numerical (table) comparison of the old and the new sunspot numbers normalised to the old scale.
Matthew, I am afraid Lew et al admit nothing of the sort. They accuse others of projections while oblivious to their own.
