I wish some of the scientist types here , including Judith, could take this assertion of yours, and Cowtan and Ways, of perfection when you run your algorithms and expose it for the scientific cruelty it is.
Measurements must vary, must have errors, must have cloudy days when areas do not agree with surrounding areas. You cannot wipe this variability and difference out in the name of homogenization.
It is not science to cover up data that does not agree with you or your “recipe”.
It has another name but I am not a Steyn type.
Are there others out there who can explain this to Steven.
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by angech2014
↧
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Jim D
In BEST, they detect and correct for inhomogeneities. They never claimed it was perfect, only that it is better than the raw data. Tell us where they claim it is perfect.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
New paper: The climate change consensus extends bend climate scientists [link]
Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference.
A survey of scientists inside of universities should result in a high bias of people who conform to consensus. What else would you expect? If they disagree and don’t have tenure, they would possibly be dismissed or never get tenure.
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by Frederick Colbourne
“EPA and environmental activists had cozy relationships…”
As I recall, these are better described as “sweetheart relationships”.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
New paper – Communicating climate change: conduit, content, consensus [link]
Finally, we point to more fruitful future directions for climate change communication, including more participatory models that acknowledge, rather than ignore, residual uncertainties in climate science in order to stimulate debate and deliberation.
acknowledge, rather than ignore, uncertainties to stimulate debate and deliberation.
No one on the consensus side is doing any of this.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
I wonder what the consensus is that Hugo Chavez absolutely decimated Venezuela’s economy (shortages of just about everything, revenues cratering while spending has gone through the roof….but his daughter somehow was able to squirrel away a couple billy).
Didn’t hear his Popeness warn anyone about that sort of policy. Guess he isn’t familiar with S America.
/sarc.
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by stefanthedenier
Jim di, ”carbon loot money” is a ”protection money” – same as the Chicago Mafia used to do – only now the Reds are doing it on a large scale / globally.
”Profiteering under false pretence” is already a crime, in every country!!! Think when the public realizes what YOU and your commissars are doing!!
https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/venus-runaway-greenhouse-con/
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
This is from the pre-Berlin Wall falling days but I always loved it:
A Russian, an Arab and a New Yorker are strolling outside the UN one afternoon. A pollster walks up and says “Excuse me, could you tell me what you think of the recent meat shortage?”
The Russian replies: “Excuse me, but what is “meat”?”
The Arab replies: “Excuse me, but what is “shortage”?”
The New Yorker replies: “Excuse me, but what is “excuse me”?”
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas
Dr. Curry,
Is this Freudian? “The climate change consensus extends bend climate scientists “?
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
“Nearly half of U.S. seafood supply is wasted, study shows”
I never really thought that everyone was throwing out the fish sticks in the freezer that had been there waaaaay too long. I thought it was just me.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
@Roscoe Shaw: Since 2000, land based temp indexes show significant warming, satellites just a small amount and the CFS data shows slight cooling. This would seem to give the trend accuracy nod to the satellite data.
Comparing global troposphere to land is apples and oranges because (a) 70% of the troposphere is over sea, not land and (b) evaporation and spray make for a much more intimate thermal contact of air with sea than with land. One would therefore expect lower troposphere to track sea surface closely, certainly much more closely than land. And one would also expect the troposphere to fluctuate more on account of having a thermal inertia equivalent to only the top 3 m of ocean, which is less than 10% of the oceanic mixed layer.
So does the data bear out these expectations? Well, here’s RSS and SST (HadSST3 global), both smoothed to a 5-year running mean, with RSS offset by 0.12 so that both have the same mean over 1979-now. Judge for yourself.
(WoodForTrees link for the above plot)
The RSS trend is +1.21 °C/century while that of SST is +1.27 °C/century (click on Raw Data at the WoodForTrees link). The UAH trend is +1.39 °C/century. The mean of the two satellite trends is 1.30 °C/century which is within 0.03 of the SST trend. Since the two satellite trends are so far apart this would seem to give the trend accuracy nod to the sea surface data.
Although there were no satellite observations of the lower troposphere prior to 1979, the foregoing expectation of close tracking, backed up by its excellent empirical confirmation, makes SST likely to be the best proxy we’ll ever have for the lower troposphere prior to 1979, better even than if there’d been satellites back then given the significant disagreement between RSS and UAH.
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by angech2014
JimD, thank you for your reply. BEST detect and correct for inhomogeneities.
Once done there are none left. The imperfections have been removed.
Once there are no imperfections something is perfect.
QED.
This does not mean the data is correct but it is correct to say that such data allows Steven to make the laughable claim that one can take any bit of the data, in any order, Pristine data, Dirty data, dogs breakfast data and have it all give the same perfect result.
And then he says the sites do not match perfectly?
Unbelievable.
Where are the support troops. How can you and he write such tripe.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
It makes perfect sense. The Pope comes to America to speak to Hispanics in Spanish for the same reason the UN meets in NY to solve the challenges of being poor in the Third world. They’re all hypocrites.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by RiHo08
“The pharmaceutical industry and medicine has the potential to blow up scientific research—in a good way” [link]
“There’s a need for more study to identify models for data sharing in ways that respect personal privacy and security and enable companies to do well by doing good.”
The fly in the ointment is patient confidentiality. The gay community, and in particular the HIV positive gay community made a push for confidentiality with the correct hypothesis that HIV positive gay men would be stigmatized by various institutions including the health professions and insurance companies.
Congress obliged by imposing strict confidentiality requirements including not naming anyone in the waiting room or having a list of patients visible.
We now have a draconian system of penalties for inadvertent revealing patient’s names or medical conditions. Specific rules are imposed upon the use of email between medical provider and patients.
Data sharing poses the risk of patient/diagnosis disclosure. One has to think very hard about turning over names, dates of birth, social security numbers (necessary to bill Medicare) to the free wheeling internet. To admit it ain’t simple would be an understatement. There are people who post pictures of themselves nude and expect the distribution of such material to be constrained. The truth of course is that once on the internet, such information is available to everyone and these strangers can do anything with such images as they want. The comedy movie “European Vacation” shows how a home movie became a brothel headliner. Privacy is gone once it is posted to the internet. Next time you go job hunting, you can be sure your internet expose’ will be discovered by some Human Resource sleuth and will go into the equation of your suitability to be hired. Of Course this depends on what job you are auditioning for.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Wagathon
At a time when the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one (forget about, for life) – is an anachronism, a Catholic Pope is about as relevant as a fart at a wedding.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by popesclimatetheory
New study: 92% non-climate scientists share human-caused #Climatechange consensus [link]
Again!
Prokopy and fellow researchers conducted a 2014 survey of scientists from more than 10 non-climate disciplines at Big Ten universities to determine the relative prevalence of belief in, and skepticism of, climate change in the scientific community.
Here we report on a survey of biophysical scientists across disciplines at universities in the Big 10 Conference. A survey of scientists inside of universities would result in a high bias of people who conform to consensus. What else would you expect?
↧
Comment on New book: Doubt and Certainty in Climate Science by Vaughan Pratt
Incidentally unlike some people I do believe the hiatus happened; for one thing it’s quite visible in the graph I just gave. I found the statistical proofs that the hiatus didn’t happen, implicitly by Santer et al and more explicitly by Rajaratnam et al, unconvincing for multiple reasons, the main one being the modeling, in both papers, of climate fluctuations not attributable to CO2 as random noise, as opposed to a combination of signals well correlated with accurately observable natural phenomena.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean acidification discussion thread by jddohio
Mosher: “you missed the entire point.” Maybe you meant to say something different from that which you wrote but my post did address what you wrote. The issue of acidification was extensively linked to rising CO2, and therefore the positive effects of CO2, in any rational examination of how acidification should be addressed, are a major part of the equation. You like most alarmists take a simplistic tack that emphasizes the negative impacts of CO2 and ignores the positive impacts.
If you seriously contend that my post misses your entire point, you may wish to say why instead of stating a broad conclusion with no supporting justification.
JD
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by harkin1
Thanks for linking to this. After reading it I googled the 1783 eruption of Lakagígar and was amazed at the havoc it caused worldwide, with some even giving it partial credit for the French revolution.
↧
Comment on Carbon mandate: an account of collusion, cutting corners and costing Americans billions by harkin1
Waiting on Joseph to condemn the SEIU and its corruption of politicians for union favors.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
