Didn’t Georgia Tech comply with Grijalva’s request?
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by matthewrmarler
↧
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D
In fact a similar letter was sent by the AMS to Smith. See the main post. The AMS is being consistent in defending scientists against political attacks, whether it is Grijalva (D) or Smith (R). This is the correct neutral stance.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by matthewrmarler
and Then There’s Physics: You’ll like this then.
That looks interesting but I can’t afford it.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by JCH
Odds are very good that Professor Curry’s inside whistleblower is a disgruntled conservative, probably not very good at his job, who was passed over for promotion. Sour gapes. Happens all the time.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Jim D
Chances are Judith would take it very differently if the government employee being investigated was Spencer (emails, etc.) as they try to figure out how the heck his privately held UAH algorithm shows no El Nino yet. This is so far from other data sources, it makes the “pause” look like small potatoes.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
CE at its best.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by matthewrmarler
dikranmarsupial: So you would only expect the two to be the same if the effects of internal climate variability were approximately zero.
That has in fact been assumed by some people. Though not as much recently.
But how much of the model spread actually reflects differences in the treatments of natural variability? It looks to me as though some weighting of the model outputs is needed (as in the Bayesian approaches to testing non-point null hypotheses, like the Bayes Factors approach of Kass and Raftery), and it isn’t sufficient for the data to fall barely within the range of model outputs (as it does now.)
Since I mentioned it, I should probably be the one to do it.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by popesclimatetheory
The GHG warming is greater than claimed by “non-warmers” and less than claimed by global warmers and that is all that can be said with any certainty.
Modern warming is not more than Roman warming and not more than Medieval Warming. You cannot say with certainty that GHG caused any of the warming that you have no data to support.
↧
Comment on JC op ed: the politics surrounding global temperature data by Don Monfort
Stop the whinging, little dudes. The investigation is ON! Mr. “Karl in particular” is in deep dookey.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Frederick Colbourne
My understanding is that the United States has a data quality law that applies to data acquired, compiled and archived by US Government agencies.
This alone would bring data processing within the purview of the Congress.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Planning Engineer
Yes-I thought it was about picking out the cherries from a source containing mostly lesser fruit and misrepresenting the overall source.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by kim
We already know it ain’t missing in the shallow ocean. Tell me more about these boundaries.
================
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by Pat Cassen
Matthew – Request a PDF from one of the authors –
Dear Prof xxx – I would greatly appreciate…
Seldom fails.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by kim
Whenever we found a stone in one of her pies, my mother would say ‘That’s how you can tell the cherries are real’.
It’s rare to find stones in the Climate Pie.
============================
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by kim
‘hiding’ is a better word than ‘missing’ in my 9:40. ‘missing’ is ambiguous enough to give the opposite meaning if not read with my intended meaning.
I’m curious about this ‘fix’ and I mean ‘fix’ in the very best and nicest of senses.
================
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by AK
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by PA
Well, PCT…
We are probably going to end up having to agree to disagree.
The 22 PPM = 0.2 W study looks.pretty solid. If something looks solid and passes the smell test I go with it.
On the other hand (and I would love to be corrected) the effect seems to only be near the ground. Can’t go much higher since there isn’t an equatorial hot spot and UAH isn’t affected.
The average ground temperature is 288K and raising the temperature 1K requires 5.5 W/m2.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat
Putting this all together, the forcing since 1900 (296 PPM) is
( 0.2/(ln (392/370))* ln (400/296) = 1.04 W/m2
1.04 W/m2 / 5.5 W/m2/K = 0.19K
So the temperature increase due to all the forcing since 1900 from GHG driven AGW is about 0.19 K.
Since there has been more than 0.19 K of warming since 1900 it must be due to natural forcings, or ALW (anthropogenic local warming),. or perhaps those aerosol and cloudy things that are badly understood (“low confidence”),.since it isn’t due to GHG driven AGW,
The average time outgoing energy is queued in the atmosphere increases with more GHG (at least at the surface) because the mean absorption distance is reduced, More energy queued in the atmosphere means it is warmer. So I expect near the surface it will be a little warmer. It is a little warmer near the surface as indicated by the UCB study.
↧
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by kim
Heh, the coarse ‘handling of the ice edge cells.’
===========
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by popesclimatetheory
What is warming the surface? The sun warms the surface. Ice cools earth.
We just came out of the Little Ice Age. There was more ice on earth in the little Ice Age and less ice now. Earth warmed because there is less ice. Earth did not warm and take away the ice. The ice melted and retreated and depleted and that warmed the earth. This is the same as it was when earth warmed out of a cold period into the Roman Warm Period. This is the same as it was when earth warmed out of a cold period into the Medieval Warm Period.
This suggests that Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity is not important. If it has an influence, it does not matter. Polar oceans thaw and turn on the cooling snowfall when the polar sea ice melts. If CO2 causes warming, the snowfall will be turned on sooner, just like your Air Conditioning system at home when you invite some hot people to your house.
↧
Comment on Hiatus controversy: show me the data by popesclimatetheory
We just came out of the Little Ice Age into this Modern Warm Period. We are supposed to to be warm now. It is a natural cycle and we did not cause it. We will bounce along the upper bound for a few hundred years, just like in Roman and Medieval times. We will break a lot of warm records, but not by a huge amount. We have a lot of unprecedented records because in Roman and Medieval times they did not have thermometers yet. We do not have thermometer records for cold and warm periods before 130 years ago. We have proxy records and we must look at and understand that data.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
