mw
it is always a pleasure to read what you write. I fear david wont get it because he doesnt do any real work
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by angech2014
Mosher claims that 5000 stations out of 40000 stations is a representative sample.
There are no 40000 real stations in the network he describes, the system makes up stations at grid points that the algorithm requires.
At least 10,000.
It also makes up data for the stations that are real but nonfunctioning due to issues, equipment down, equipment malfunctioning, in some areas operators who are ill or have died. Stations that have been replaced by progress. Say 12000.
This leaves 28000 thousand, many at military or scientific bases, often airports sometimes in mechanical buoys and floats which have to have inbuilt temperatures to function, not that this should effect the temp of the water about them being collected or the air nearby.
These 28,000 stations do not have their raw data used directly. It is compared to past measurements and altitude and latitude but not cloud cover adjustments and then adjusted to what it should have been on top of that mountain at the latitude of Siberia.
How dare it be different from what our algorithms say it should be with our CO 2 adjustments.
Neighbouring sites are homogenised to agree with the warmest sites, it must be warmer surely, never the coldest.
Then and only then does our Steven draw his 5000 random stations out of the hat. Look Ma.
Our system works, well one could think of other words.
In the field of statistics one should draw the 5000 samples at least a 1000 times.
Then one should do an analysis of the error range.
One should have aberrant results.
One sample should come back disproving what Steven has said by being absolutely a degree below the average.
Half the samples do come back under the line, that is what an average is.
But there is also a spread.
There should be outliers positive and negative of sprightly dimensions.
There should be an error bar of 1/2 a degree.
But what do we get?
An error bar of 0.1 degree.
Scientifically impossible.
But true.
How do we know?
In the words of Mr Integrity he has said that we can take any 5000 results and we will always get the same answer.
And he is right.
Though scientifically impossible.
Which can only mean, statistically, that the results have been massaged by the algorithms to that state of perfection, 97% in agreement.
Hoist with ones own petard.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
” Now we create the global temp field by stretching a perfect, no sagging tent over all these poles. The average height of the tent is the average temperature of the globe. The assumptions here are huge. Many adjustments are possible and some are made, others not.”
there are always huge numbers of assumptions.
The way we progress is by stating a precise assumption and testing it.
For example.
Assuming that UHI infects the average. simple to test. it doesnt.
Assuming few stations will change the answer. it doesnt
Assuming more will improve it. nope.
The crazy thing is only a couple people have identified the real issues
with the approach we take. other folks.. just dont get it
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Curious George
I like a reference to “data correction techniques”. That way you can prove anything – as we see happening. Statistics can assign a lower weight to supposedly incorrect data, but not to manufacture artificial – pardon, corrected or adjusted – data.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Don Monfort
Tony, a few British troops were responsible for holding onto Helmand province for a number of years. The Parachute Regiment was prominent, with help from Royal Marines, SAS, Dutch special forces and U.S Marines, 82nd Airborne and spec operators. About a thousand of our best people died there. I believe nearly 400 were British. In a year or two it’s likely the Taliban will be in control again.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by angech2014
Jim D | August 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm |
“The way the scientists check into “cheating” is to see if they can reproduce the results themselves. Both the hockey stick and CRU temperature record were confirmed independently, therefore no cheating, and science moved on.
I would ask the skeptics to find a paleo reconstruction without a hockey stick.”
Try
Post-1960 values of the Briffa MXD series
These values trend downward in the original citation (Briffa [2000]
now there is your “true” paleo reconstruction unabridged and without a hockey stick.
Correct?
Thank you for your confirmatory, unusual silence.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Don Monfort
NICE WORK, Steven. But what about the satellites?
Anyway, I can’t obsess about this BS, like some people do. I am among the great majority of folks who list climate change down near the bottom of things to worry about. I am most concerned about what Obama et al are doing to our country and the consequences that the wrecking of the world’s good superpower will have on peace and freedom on our little planet.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by angech2014
Steven Mosher | August 26, 2015 at 7:12 pm |
” Now we create the global temp field by stretching a perfect, no sagging tent over all these poles.
Assuming that UHI infects the average. simple to test. it doesnt”
And the reason why?
Mosher gives it earlier. He already included it so it cannot be tested!!
Steven Mosher | August 26, 2015 at 1:22 pm |
“Then we get to adjustment, UHI, local heat contamination a la Watts & Co, etc. These are all cumulative sources of error.
UHI is included in the station error.”
Steven Mosher | August 26, 2015 at 5:52 pm |
“Don everything else, UHI, land cover, etc.. is SECONDARY.”
Well hardly secondary. Primary or hidden by being included in the data before looking for it.
UHI is real, obvious, look at a picture of the globe at night. Imagine what is was like before those cities and power stations were built. Imagine the temperature then and now.
But Mosher has no imagination, you say?
Not true.
Then why can he not see UH effect ?
He has turned his UH sensors off and put his dark glasses on.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by angech2014
USHCN includes UHI for all its observations.
“UHI is included in the station error.”
So now we can safely say UHI does not exist?
“Piffle” in the words of the great man Wolfe.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
Its simple.
take all 40k stations.
select the rural.
the answer is the same.
why?
1. UHI is not year round. the figures you see people highlight are
UHI MAX! which doesnt occur every day. So its real, but not really frequent.
2. Given ANY city there will be regions in the city that are warmer than
the rural, the same as the rural, and Lower than the rural.
in other words UHI varies across the city. so it really really matters
WHERE you site in the city.
3. rural landcover can cause more warming than urban.
here.
Look at this chart. degrees kelvin on the left
the x axis is CATAGORY of land cover
Guess which category is URBAN is it 7 or 10?
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
sorry i dont use USHCN
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
“Mosher claims that 5000 stations out of 40000 stations is a representative sample.
There are no 40000 real stations in the network he describes, the system makes up stations at grid points that the algorithm requires.
At least 10,000.”
Wrong.
there are more than 40K stations.
Even ISTI has 32K
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/databank
you refuse to look at data sources
lets start with GHCN Daily
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-daily/
GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network)-Daily is an integrated database of daily climate summaries from land surface stations across the globe. Like its monthly counterpart (GHCN-Monthly) , GHCN-Daily is comprised of daily climate records from numerous sources that have been integrated and subjected to a common suite of quality assurance reviews.
GHCN-Daily now contains records from over 75000 stations in 180 countries and territories. Numerous daily variables are provided, including maximum and minimum temperature, total daily precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth; however, about two thirds of the stations report precipitation only. Both the record length and period of record vary by station and cover intervals ranging from less than year to more than 175 years.se to look at data
other sources you can see here
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets
exampple
The database includes over 35,000 stations worldwide, with some having data as far back as 1901, though the data show a substantial increase in volume in the 1940s and again in the early 1970s. Currently, there are over 14,000 “active” stations updated daily in the database. The total uncompressed data volume is around 600 gigabytes; however, it continues to grow as more data are added. ISD includes numerous parameters such as wind speed and direction, wind gust, temperature, dew point, cloud data, sea level pressure, altimeter setting, station pressure, present weather, visibility, precipitation amounts for various time periods, snow depth, and various other elements as observed by each station.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Steven Mosher
“Then and only then does our Steven draw his 5000 random stations out of the hat. Look Ma.”
No.
not even wrong.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by Jim D
angech, you prefer tree rings to thermometers? If you had both which line would you keep and which one would you throw away? Thought so.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by AK
If you had both which line would you keep and which one would you throw away?
Yet another straw man.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Mark Silbert
Don Monfort,
+100
I can obsess about many things, but CAGW is not one of them.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by GaryM
“Watch a real skeptic examine the same question with different data.”
Nonsense. Eschenbach’s post has absolutely nothing to do with your claims that you and BEST can discern trends of tenths and hundredths of a degree at locations with no sensors. Let alone construct a national or “global” average temperature with such precision substituting statistics for data.
No one denies that our sparse measurements are completely useless. Clearly there are broad climate issues we can study with such data.
But what we (you) do not have is measurements sufficiently extensive, and precise, to justify giving you and your fellow warmists control of the global energy economy.
Keep changing the subject though. Maybe no one will notice.
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
I just assume that anyone who claims to be a ‘climate scientist’ is, (by definition) a lying bastard.
The few exceptions are people with whom I’ve had sufficient opportunity to meet them or discuss issues with them to persuade me otherwise.
Works for me. And it makes life so much simpler.
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Michael
“Michael and Willard should share their sexist comments” – angech2014
Maybe if you could provide an example my ‘sexist comments’??
↧
Comment on JC’s conscience by Stephen Heins
Steven Mosher,
Yeats said that rhetoric was an argument with somebody else and poetry is an argument with oneself.
You may be wrong about the future (I think you are), but please be humble enough to understand the following: “I now predict that I was wrong, sayeth Stephen Hawking.
Some of us hope that stop you stop sounding so pedantic.
Best wishes from Wisconsin,
Steve
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
