Gary has been on fire lately. Yes, and this is where Mosher has got it…wait for it…WRONG!

“you take data from all over the world”

Much of the world has no data. That’s why they have to make it up with elaborate “model” schemes. They even hold their little noses and use the satellites to infill, when it suits their little purposes. We really don’t much care about wild ass guesses on what the global temp was in 1875, or 1947. We are interested in the last few decades as CO2 has increased. Why do they ignore the satellite data?

I agree with Judith that this is an excellent paper, which makes clear the uniqueness of the problem of climate change and how humans are reacting to it. The situation is unprecedented in human history, and the author’s analysis shines a clear light on the debate that is in progress.

AK, I think before you pronounce on ‘lukewarmers’ you should spend some time reading what they say.

gary

“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.”

1. straw man. We make no such claims. In fact I disagree, we do not know the temperature or trends to 1/100s. Like many others you
dont get it. I will explain. you have a scale. it measure weight within
1 lb. You step on the scale three times: 200,200,201 are your measurements. the average is 200.33. Does this mean you know the weight within 100ths? No. It means your best estimate of weight is
200.33. That means this estimate will MINIMIZE the error of prediction.
When you say “the average is 200.33” you are saying
IF you measure my weight with a perfect scale my best estimate is 200.33. When you calculate Perfection – 200.33 or the error
that number will smaller than say perfection – 200.5

As for willis work you dont even understand thee fundamentals

Lets say we want to estimate the average weight of every person
on the planet. thats 7 billion people. I start by selecting 5000 people
I note the following W = s*height. that there weight can be modelled
by merely looking at their height ( we will forget gender for now )
and so you do that regression. And then you use that model to predict the weight of the next 5000 people. Guess what, your model works pretty good. and so you check the next 5K, and the next 5 K, and so on.
And you see that you can in fact predict the weight of unseen and unweighed people. Now suppose along the way you notice that somme of your predictions are much worse than others. you look deeper and find out that you are always getting women wrong. So you go back to your model and add a term for women. And so on. and then you note that
people from the US and US samoa are always underestimated..
So you add a term for that. In all of these predictions you have an
average value for the prediction.. the average weight is 203.456876543
That doesnt mean you know the average weight to that precision.
you dont. What you are saying is that this value minimizes the error of
the prediction. Now when you have weighed 40000 people some stoopid person will scream wait.. there are billions you havent measured.
Yup that is true. Maybe they are all freaks!! ok. here is your science project. go get another 10000 and see if you find any freaks..
and so you continue this untl you have weighed 6 billion people
and then a skeptic says… all the freaks are are hidden in that last billion
so you weigh another 500 K and the skeptic says.. the last 500K might be unicorns… Super freaks and your model will have more error
so you finally get down to weighing almost everyone and the skeptic says.. The one you havent measured is a super super freak unicorn
fat person. you get the idea. its always unicorns for the conspiracy minded conservative.

So what do we do with temperature. Well first off we realize that its the the poles are cold and the equator is hot. Go figure. temperature is related to latitude the same way weight is related to height. it explains a part of it.
next we observe that everest is colder than death valley. Yup
when you go higher you get colder. So, we propose a model
T = a*Lat + b* Alt. Now its ACTUALLY more complicated than this
because we calculate the interaction of these two variables and the interaction with seaonality ( one reason your selection of cities fails )
All sorts of people say wait wait you cant say that temperature is due only to latitude and altitude. Well, yes you can. using only those two variables you can explain a large amount of the variation– like height and gender explains weight. Now to be sure there are other variables you could add.. that would make your error smaller. just like some countries have fatter people at the same height some stations have features which make your prediction less accurate. the measure.

Another thing to note is that every prominent skeptics ALSO use this approach of modelling temperature via regression. take Ross McKittrick.
you know his famous skeptical paper that jones tried to keep out of Ar4.
he modelled temperature AS A FUNCTION OF LITERACY. Yup
altitude, latitude, and literacy amongst other variables.

Now of course no skeptics jumped up and said… wait a minute you cant say that..you cant say temperature is a function of Literacy!! but that is in one of the most prominant skeptical models of temperature.

Continuing. After you build this model.. you test it. the model says the next 5000 stations will have temperatures that look like this.. yup they do. and so you add more.. yup those too.
and when we get to 40000 stations we note that our model hasnt changed very much.. we add more data from unseen places and the answer is stable.

So along comes a skeptic and yells.. what about the billions of unicorns.
So we go looking at find another 1000 stations. no unicorns.
another 1000. no unicorns….

Then willis comes along and says ‘wait’ I have a different sensor that measures temperature.. and I have the whole surface.. I can see every unicorn is there is one. And whats he prove.. yup.. you can model temperature with a few variables.. and yup there are no unicorns
when we only sample 40K we are effectively learning all there is worth learning. no unicorns.

It looks like Mosher just predicted, projected, prognosticated, pontificated, or otherwise suggested that the global temperature is constant.

What fun would he be then??

Mosher,

Baloney.

BEST’s whole purpose was supporting the CAGW case. And Mueller even went beyond that and “discovered” attribution in your made up, massaged statistical legerdemain. The goal was to show there was no problem with precision based on UHI as a rapid reaction to Watt’s surface stations project.

You keep making comments about how no matter what you do, you get the same average/trend. Those comments are meaningless except in defending your tribe’s CAGW religion.

And Eschenbach’s WUWT post was not about the precision of global average temperature constructs. Notice that his graphs involve disparities of 7 and 8 degrees celsius among the various colors.

He was not looking for a global average, but for whether you could tell anything about temperature on a macro scale using certain metrics. That is why he found evidence of the oceanic oscillations “interesting.” Not a basis for decarbonization, just interesting.

Of course altitude is a factor in local temperature. So are dozens of other factors. And picking any two broad factors can probably give you an estimate within a degree or two. But that spread renders your product useless for CAGW.

But your tribe’s whole CAGW religion is based on claims that you can determine GAT to within tenths of a degree per decade. And your claims to “warmest year ever” are based on claims of precision to hundredths of a degree.

You don’t want to be tarred with the false claims of certainty and precision made by the consensus? Stop defending their claims like you are the last Japanese soldier on the last Pacific atoll.

Besides, you forget. Surface temps are no longer a good proxy for the real CAGW culprit, heat content. Your atoll is no longer even on the maps of the Imperial Fleet.

mwgrant,

“In a nutshell Kriging does attempt to take into account nearby values (observed) when estimating a value at a given location.”

But you have to pay attention to the whole statistical house of cards. “Nearby” is often defined as 750 miles.

Somewhere up above I made a comment showing differences of several degrees on average yearly temperature (which is the CAGW standard – “warmest year ever!!!!”)

Mosher tried to claim that BEST does monthly, not annual temps.

“Gary
the model is done on MONTHLY values.”

Except that is simply false. BEST does both monthly and annual averages.

“The global surface temperature average (land and sea) for 2014
was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of error, it is tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.”

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf

Mosher’s comments sound great, if you ignore their intended purpose. Which is of course his obscurantist point.

Michael | August 26, 2015 at 9:05 pm |
“Michael and Willard should share their sexist comments” – angech2014
Maybe if you could provide an example my ‘sexist comments’??

Somebody thinks you make them

“Michael, what is your problem, man? You are always able to find a tiny little sentence or quote in a huge post from Judith that you disagree with and then dig up some obscure vague link between Judy and somebody/something you disagree with, to insult her or question her motives or integrity.”

Somebody thinks you should not

Tamino in a weak moment
” I’ll continue to listen to what my wife thinks and feels, and try to remember to shut my mouth while she’s talking (something most men, including me, should learn to do better and more often)”.

Somebody else confirms it but then you didn’t hear that did you?

“Michael has always missed the concept. But then he isn’t here for any concepts, just to be a smartass trying to annoy Dr Curry.”

That attitude, on this blog, seems sexist to me.

Do you think Willard has been sexist in his remarks?
Have you called him out above? No.
So condemned both by your past statements and attacks and by your current silence.

Try again. This line of yours is repetitive and tricky and not even wrong.
It is smart and tricky to dodge facts but not ethical.
You do not look good doing it.
I agree with 90% of your statements but I will attack the AGW support rubbish you put up til the cows come home.
“I dont use USHCN”
so what.
The stations you have commented on include USHCN even if you personally cross your heart and deny knowledge of it.
The UHI adjustments are included in the station data both USHCN and otherwise so stop being a weasel on this point.

Oh, I see, there are no “sexist comments” from me.

Steven Mosher | June 28, 2014
If you take 40000 raw records and want to create a global average you MUST calculate.
Steven Mosher | August 26, 2015 at 1:22 pm |
“Then we get to the area averaging method, or in BEST’s case the field averaging method.You have 40,000 stations ( actually more ).
Steven Mosher | August 26, 2015 at 8:14 pm | Reply
Wrong. there are more than 40K stations.
Steven Mosher | August 26, 2015
take all 40k stations.
Well which is it Steven? 40,00 stations
or more than 40,000 stations?
and the real questions
How many are real?
How many real ones are active?
Dodge.
Dodge.
Dodge.
Every time you evade this question one only sees deception not Integrity.

not even wrong.
I know the quote
Then prove it.
Quote the number of fabricated stations.
Quote the number of inactive stations.
Judith had a post Skeptical of skeptics: is Steve Goddard right?
Posted on June 28, 2014 | 588 Comments
Did you answer then No will you answer now No
Of course Goddard could chip in [please]
Or Nick Stokes.
The truth really , really hurts , does it not.

A somewhat related point is in regard to the signatories of the UNFCCC at the Rio convention in 1993. 154 nations signed the UNFCCC, many of which do not have science curricula comparable to that of the seventh grade in developed nations. Yet the consensus claims this to be evidence of the near universal “consensus.” Climate change is a very complex subject. Why would those nations sign up when they are completely incapable of making informed judgments on a highly complicated technical / scientific matter ? Answer: because they were put in a position that they had to sign it. Those nations are highly dependent on the United Nations and related bodies for support and aid. That is not a personal level cognitive dissonance but a national level cognitive dissonance, or to put it bluntly a form of coercion. In their minds they “had to sign.”

GaryM

“In a nutshell Kriging does attempt to take into account nearby values (observed) when estimating a value at a given location.”

But you have to pay attention to the whole statistical house of cards. “Nearby” is often defined as 750 miles.

The quoted sentence above applies to kriging and is not specific or restricted to the BEST implementation. Above* you wrote:

So surrounding topography, proximity to lakes, forests, and mountains, and susceptibility to impacts of various oceanic oscillations, are irrelevant to your model? Or its laughably inflated claims to precision?

* http://judithcurry.com/2015/08/25/jcs-conscience/#comment-727491

These factors affect other stations in that locale. Kriging weights closer location more than distance. Kriging is one attempt at incorporating Tobler’s Law into the estimation. Kriging is an estimation technique. Your comment suggests to me that either you still somewhat unfamiliar with the conceptual basis of the technique you are criticizing or choose to ignore it just to chew on a leg. As for 750 miles and greater: given coverage in some areas who is surprised? That aspect is of course subject to criticisms and comment, yes that affects the quality of estimates. However, were I you I would raise my game—maybe dig into the analyses and in particular the error analyses. As for BEST, the fact is one does not work for hours and hours on such tasks and not notice issues and on a number of occasion it has been noted that there are priorities.

As for But you have to pay attention to the whole statistical house of cards. That is a pretty vague comment. Just what is your ‘statistical house of cards’ here? That is, for you what statistical sensibilities are being tweaked?

Somewhere up above I made a comment showing differences of several degrees on average yearly temperature (which is the CAGW standard – “warmest year ever!!!!”). I assume here you are referring to the comparison between locations with similar latitudes and how they illustrate local and regional influences. Well, again kriging preferentially weights/weighs nearer observations (Tobler’s Law). BTW Steven adequately caveated his discussion up front:

I will keep it simple imagine the function looks like …

Monthly, annual? Ha! Give me a break! Better yet, just what is your point? Just messin’ with Steven or an important criticism?

I could care less about ‘record’ or ‘no record’. For reasons well beyond BEST, C&W, etc., etc., etc. that ‘highest recorded temperature meme IMO is total silliness that I generally ignore in the media. Don’t waste your time with it.

Mosher’s comments sound great, if you ignore their intended purpose. Which is of course his obscurantist point.

Absent language cues I am not as quick to attribute purpose to Steven’s and others remarks. Where others may look at the remarks looking for alarm I try to look for caveats and technical aspects. One also has to look at context.

I think the trained hen in charge of the bloat panel at Luiss University pecked out Epistemic Dissonance when it meant to peck out Epistemic Corruption. Or Dissonant Cognition, maybe. Then it beaked Ethical instead of Evidential and so on. Or maybe not. The usual few glitches on the assembly line, but nobody noticed or cared. Nobody ever does.

Good try, warmies.

@climatereason
Nicely said „ climate is actually the characteristics that matter more on a human scale“.
Correct; mankind lives with weather and climate since the stone age and much longer. That does not mean science is well served when using the terms in the same manner. The last IPCC proves that they talk nonsense when saying:

“Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”

What is it worth to talk about “relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years”, and about which items, as weather can be recognised in many dozen if not hundred occurrences?