Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by timg56

0
0

For your students sake Ken I hope your dishonest style is kept out of the classroom.

The difference that comes through reading comments from you, a professor in a field of physics and Robert Brown, also a professor in a field of physics, is startling.

Don’t be a dishonest puts Ken. If you truly need a religion to live by, look for one that is less easily falsified.


Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by edbarbar

0
0

“Another recent paper used a different NOAA ocean surface temperature data set to find that since 2003 the global average ocean surface temperature has been rising at a rate that is an order of magnitude smaller than the rate of increase reported in Karl’s paper.”

Pet peeve. I do not like the buzz phrase “Order of magnitude.” Order of magnitude in what base? 10? 100? 2? 1.5?

People use this term without understanding what it means. In general it means “By a lot, but I’m using a precise term.” No, the term is not precise. 10X is precise. 2X is precise. But “order of magnitude” is a fluffy term.

Not that I disagree with the substance of the article. If correct, and global temperatures are correctly represented, it is going to be another nail in the coffin of public trust of scientists of all kinds. What a shame.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Jim D

0
0

UAH is still inexplicable showing La Nada as of October 2015. Someone needs to look at why, considering how 1998 was overcooked by the same dataset. This explains its flatness. Other surface warm areas are reproduced, but not the big one.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)

0
0

It’s my hope that Exxon takes the Chevron approach in Chevron v Ecuador, the case of the transparent and appallingly crooked legal shakedown that was revealed to be such – even tho still not finalised.

Climate alarmists are devoted to the idea co2 is a pollutant. Nuts.

Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

0
0

vp, the ~0.8 C per century appears to be a limit of sorts set by the ocean heat exchange characteristics. Solar is going to be a fun puzzle which would probably be best approached from an ocean mainly perspective. The oceans do have a different time constant due to penetration of the long wave lengths and much larger heat capacity.

Comment on Steve Koonin: The tough realities of the Paris climate talks by eli rabett (@EthonRaptor)

0
0

Eli is that old. You could not do it in the 90s (Richard) but you could in the 70s. The combustion folk knew the ozone fold knew the chemical dynamics and theoretical folk, etc. One Gordon Conference was pretty much enough.

In an interesting way this accounts for the Exxon mess. Their emphasis was on combustion but there was more than enough overlap with spectroscopy and so forth that the expertise was in house or had a Kevin Bacon number of unity, and no one was going to act like a stooge for management and lose the respect of everyone else

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D

0
0

They have it exactly backwards. They are launching an investigation even before any sign of wrong science. Next they will be doing it even before the papers are written.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Jim D


Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by mwgrant

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)

0
0

It’s not the normal bring data that is inconsistent.

Temp data is there, for everyone to see, in every newspaper and in the literature and painting, and the historical records etc etc, from the cricket games and the horse race meetings and the agricultural auctions and yacht clubs etc etc etc, religious festivals, shipping records, honey makers, mining records etc, stretching back for 2000 years and the ice cores (if Lonny Thompson would ever share them) and stretching back further with soil and seed samples etc (so long as Mann doesn’t ruin everything with his hockey stick historical temp revisionism) and everywhere else.

The “forcing” numbers now are fictional and need to be ‘corrected’ as you say but how can they be when Gavin Schmidt and Karl and others are busy massaging the normal data til it doesn’t look at all like any kind of record at all – Rutherglen in Australia is a bit of a poster child for blatant temp record fudging.

Start with the temp record, I reckon. Delete Hadcru, delete BEST, delete NASA, NOAA, the lot – it’s all been fiddled so much since the the late 1980s by partisan and deeply unprofessional players, it’s not real at all now.

Crowdsource a collection of actual recorded temps using more than just buckets and stephenson screens but using the historical records, like TonyB’s approach.

I’ll wager we’ll resurrect the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and final, finally, the lie of the hockey stick historical temp record on which the whole global warming/climate change hysteria is built, will be obliterated.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by hidethedecline (@hidethedecline)

0
0

Before any sign of wrong science? What? How can you type such guff?

You post here regularly. Karl et al was revealed as a sad flawed joke the minute it got published. You know this because you post here regularly. Including in the Karl thread.

Karl et al is a bit of a poster child for wrong science.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Science or Fiction

0
0

“2. Data and Methods
The impact of using blended temperatures was evaluated for climate model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) archive [Taylor et al., 2012] using a combination of the historical and Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) emissions scenarios. ”

“The difference between the latitude weighted global mean of the blended temperature and the unblended air temperature provides a measure of the bias in the model-observation comparison.”

But air temperatures are not available over the oceans.

“The purpose of this work is to evaluate the impact of comparing air temperatures from models with the blended observational data, and to establish guidelines for the determination of blended temperature comparisons. These require changes both in the way global mean temperature from models is evaluated, and ideally also in the preparation of blended observational datasets.”

If I understand this correctly:
Since air temperatures are not available over the oceans – models where used to quantify the bias of using sea surface temperature rather than air temperature. When evaluating models, this bias must be taken into account.

Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone.
– Albert Einstein

Comment on Natural climate variability during 1880-1950: A response to Shaun Lovejoy by hockeyschtick

0
0

VP says, “HS, I was unable to find anything in the second paper you cited that contradicted the steady rise in Earth’s surface temperature with increasing CO2. Everything in that paper seemed entirely consistent with the correlation between CO2 and surface temperature.”

As stated in the second paper:

Resistance Rc corresponds to convection ‘shorting out’ the tropospheric radiative resistance Rt .”

The fact that convection dominates or “shorts out” tropospheric radiative resistance proves that the gravito-thermal effect of mass/pressure/gravity/convection controls the tropospheric lapse rate, temperature profile, and surface temperature, just as calculated by the HS greenhouse equation.

Further, …”In the conventional approach of convective
adjustment, Rc is replaced by a diode, with a fixed voltage
drop—supply of additional current or increasing Rt simply
forces more current through that element, such that the convective
heat flux always maintains a constant lapse rate or
temperature difference.

Correct, as calculated by the HS greenhouse equation, which calculates the 33C GHE as well as the even larger -35C anti-greenhouse effect from the center of mass of the atmosphere to the top of the troposphere.

Continuing from the 2nd paper, “Another approach may be to select the convective ‘resistance’
to maximise the electrical power dissipated in
that element—i.e., the product of voltage difference and
current flow. There is some evidence (Lorenz, 2003; Paltridge,
1975) that horizontal heat transport on the Earth
may adjust itself to maximize dissipation (or entropy production),
apparently also the case with Titan and Mars
(Lorenz et al., 2001). Ozawa and Ohmura (1997) present
a 1D radiative–convection model (with shortwave absorption)
with the vertical convective flux selected to maximize
entropy production—without regard to any critical
lapse rate—and find that the observed terrestrial atmosphere
seems consistent with this idea.

The CO2 “partial blackbody” radiating in the ~15um band is “equivalent” to a true blackbody a an emitting temperature of 193K by Wien’s Law. A 193K BB cannot transfer heat to the much much warmer blackbodies the atmosphere at 255K or surface at 288K. To do so would require a continuous DECREASE of entropy, forbidden by the 2nd law and Principle of Maximum Entropy Production.

“I can’t comment on the first paper because it left out too many steps in the reasoning. Perhaps you can fill them in? I couldn’t.”

Specifically what?

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Don Monfort

0
0

The Congressional oversight committees can investigate any time they smell something fishy, yimmy. Do you think that it’s a good idea for allegedly innocent subjects of Congressional oversight investigations to go with the stonewalling option?

Judith: “Smith’s request has a very different context: concern about the quality of a specific data set of great policy relevance that was touted by NOAA in a big press release; and concern that Karl in particular has been playing politics with NOAA data.

I’ve heard enough behind the scenes (including discussions with NOAA employees) that I am siding with Rep. Smith on this one.”

It looks like some NOAA insiders have done blowed da whistle on “Karl in particular”.

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D

0
0

So far, everything the skeptics have said has been wrong, mainly because they have not even tried to repeat the study and they don’t understand the data. Repeat the study, and then complain. Not, read the conclusion and launch a knee-jerk investigation, which is what this is. Congressmen listen to the wrongheaded accusations from one side and don’t try to understand the responses that correct the errors in them.


Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Mark Silbert

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D

0
0

The data is there. Find what is wrong with it. A scientist, government or academic, is allowed to use existing data and draw conclusions from it. This study could have been done by a university or foreign government. Would they have come under scrutiny? The data is the data, and who does the study does not matter.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by stevefitzpatrick

0
0

Judith,
“So it is premature to declare the hiatus dead.”

Sure, but not too early to declare the stupid GCMs are wrong. The hiatus is irrelevant, the divergence of model projections from realty is what matters.

Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Tucci78

0
0
<blockquote><i>Measuring climate is an engineering problem and should be turned over to engineers so it is done correctly. <b>Time to kick the amateurs off the field and let the pros take over.</b> Measuring surface temperature is not a big problem. Drive stakes 20 feet deep in pristine areas and measure the temperature from 20 feet deep to the surface. This combined with sea temperatures from ARGO probes will give a valid consistent measurement of the planet. We have thousands of ARGO probes and the system was considered online as of 1993. It is inconceivable we are even bothering with ship measurements after 1993. We don’t care. Toss them. This eliminates the ship/buoy adjustment problem No ships, No problem. If people want surface air temperatures for historic comparison – a new official surface monitoring system can be deployed near the pristine land sensors. The sensors would conform to an engineering standard and replacement with a non-compliant sensor would be a felony. This eliminates the adjustment/UHI issues. Again – adjustment by the government agencies of the raw pristine data should be a felony. Problem solved. Looking backward the temperature record is a mess. However we now have an opportunity to parse through the data and separate GHG from other influence – it isn’t like the data is referenced to the new official monitoring system. The legacy surface monitoring system would provide an indication of the local warming effects by comparison to the new official surface monitoring system. The current staff would be encouraged to keep adjusting up the data from the legacy surface network – since that magnifies the signal of local warming. The official historic temperature report would be detrended by the indicated local warming trend. We need to collect some honest data before anybody can show anything.</i></blockquote> [Emphasis added.] All apologies to Dr. Curry, when it comes to instrumental analysis, most of the people trained and practicing as "climate scientists" are like toddlers pushing buttons on microwave ovens. They really don't understand what's making the "beep-beep-beep" noises much less how their Cream of Wheat is being heated. <blockquote><blockquote><b><i>When you work in experimental physics, you have it drilled into you that without proper calibration, at the end of the experiment you will have, as my professor one time screamed at me, no data. ... When I was working with Dr. Van Zytveld to measure the thermopower of liquid rare earth elements, recalibration of our instruments had to be done all the time. One reason for this was that the thermocouples we used to measure temperatures were essentially consumed after each experimental run. Even if not visibly damaged, after one use where they were called upon to measure temperatures above a thousand degrees C for many hours, they were unlikely to survive a second run, let alone remain accurate. Also, we frequently rebuilt the ovens we used to achieve those high temperatures. After each experimental run, I would have to experiment with my rebuilt rig and make sure it would track along the same curve as the previous runs had. That is, I had to calibrate it with the previous work. When doing experimental physics, the test rig used to make measurements is a separate experiment in its own right. If you haven’t experimented with your test rig enough to know exactly how it works, you will never be satisfied that the measurements you make with it are valid, or at least you shouldn’t be. For my junior year laboratory requirement, I measured the speed of light in gases. The methodology for this experiment was quite clever. I had to fill a small cylindrical chamber with various gases, then pass a laser beam through it, the chamber being in one arm of an interferometer. When the split laser beam was recombined, it formed an interference pattern. As the gas was slowly pumped out of the chamber, I could see fringe shifts in the interference pattern, and the number of shifts allowed me to calculate the speed of light in the gas. The experiment was an interesting mix of high tech with low. The interferometer has been around since the 1800s, the laser since the 1960s, and to count the fringe shifts I used a very modern (for the 1980s) trace storage oscilloscope attached to a light sensor. To measure the pressure, I used a U-tube mercury manometer, which goes back to the Middle Ages. The way you read a manometer is to measure the difference in height of the mercury column between the right and left sides. What I did was to measure the height on one side from the unpressurized position and then double it. I thought I was saving time. Unfortunately, this method would only be valid if the right and left sides were volumetrically uniform, and they were not. I was a bit slow in accepting that all my labor might be worthless, at which point Professor Van Baak screamed at me, “You have NO data!” (Fortunately, there was a simple, albeit tedious, way to recover my data and so save my experiment.) As embarrassing as it was at the time, now, 25 years later I’m glad I made that mistake and learned that lesson. It greatly sensitized me to the need to examine all the assumptions that go into a measurement, and helped me notice when others were less than punctilious about it. </b></i> <blockquote>-- Jeffery D. Kooistra, <a href="http://www.analogsf.com/0911/altview_11.shtml" rel="nofollow"><b>"Lessons From the Lab"</b></a> (<i>Analog</i>, November 2009)</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>

Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by matthewrmarler

0
0
PA: <i>On the other hand Smith is asking government employees about jobs he is paying them to do. Claiming that your boss can’t ask you “what the hell are you doing?” is insane. </i> I agree with that.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images