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

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by edbarbar

0
0

Those adjustments do not look random. Hard to prove it, though.


Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by mwgrant

0
0

Ken,

My current inclination is that the existence or non-existence of a hiatus is not important–basically because there is always the next year’s uncertainty, the next five years’ uncertainty, etc. Lacking an accepted validated conceptual physical model statistics will come up short. (To be clear, this should not be taken as a reason for no action on the policy front. That is an entirely different matter.) Looking at the hiatus is important from the perspective that it may provide insights and ultimately detail on the [yet unspecified] mechanisms at play.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA

0
0
<i>douglasproctor | November 23, 2015 at 6:52 pm | Anyone who has worked in business understands the importance of the “smell” test. When things just don’t seem right, feel wrong, then you are missing some crucial data. It may be correct, but you are still missing some crucial data, and the more the originators of the thing tell you that nothing is wrong, but do not supply the missing data, the more sure you are that there is a PROCEDURAL problem they are not discussing.</i> +10 Most global warmers have never held a useful or productive job in their lives and have no sense of smell.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by opluso

0
0

From Karl’s supplementary material (page 2 of 6):

The factor that contributed the largest change in SST trends over this period was continuing to make corrections to ship data after 1941.These corrections are based on information derived from night marine air temperature. This correction cools the ship data a bit more in 1998-2000 than it does in the later years, which thereby adds to the warming trend. To evaluate the robustness of this correction, trends of the corrected and uncorrected ship data were compared to co-located buoy data without the offset added. As the buoy data did not include the offset the buoy data are independent of the ship data. The trend of uncorrected ship minus buoy data was -0.066°C dec-1 over the period 2000-2014, while the trend in corrected ship minus buoy data was -0.002°C dec-1.

As I understand Karl’s description, uncorrected buoy data (that is, prior to adding 0.12 C?) was used to test of the validity of their decision to extend the mid-century ship adjustments into more recent years.

If extending pre-1941 ship data adjustments into recent decades by itself produced nearly perfect agreement (-0.002 C/decade) with the uncorrected buoy data trend line — why did they need to add an additional adjustment to the buoy data afterwards?

I can only assume I misunderstood Karl’s description and would welcome a clarification on this point.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by JCH

0
0

Well, it should be even warmer, so yeah, puzzle pieces are missing.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by angech2014

0
0

Biggest story, not listed, is the Danish Meteorological Institute 30% sea ice extent graph running since 2005.
It shows the highest level of Arctic sea ice ever for the last month.
[ever being an effervescent word, but correct here in the sense that the graphs have only been running since 2005].
It correlates reasonably well with PIOMAS in that 30% thickness has a better relationship to volume than 15%.
It indicates that PIOMAS is likely to jump up again this year against my previous expectations.
It bodes well for continuing Arctic ice extent recovery, even in an El Nino year.
Is there a problem with the other 15% data sets?
some have not been updating for weeks on end and few seem to relate to PIOMAS and 30% measurements, even the DMI 15% graph.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

0
0

It is a big lie that they are not hiding anything, little yimmy. They are hiding the emails and the other info the Congressional committee has asked for. The committee wants to know if the whistleblowers’ charges are true. If the NOAA alarmist sighentists were influenced by political motives to get rid of the pause and if they followed the established NOAA scientific procedures and methods. They can’t keep that stuff hidden, yimmy. It will come out.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by angech2014

0
0

Perhaps evanescent or incandescent would have been better choices than effervescent, though it is a bubbly uplifting feeling having a marker go in the right direction.


Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by JCH

0
0
<i><a href="http://sstcci2.blogspot.ch/2015/06/no-slowdown-in-global-temperature-rise.html" rel="nofollow">Looking at our ATSR-based obs4MIPS dataset, the global mean SST trend (not including sea ice areas) over 1998 to 2012 [1] is 0.085°C, which is 0.06°C/decade [2].</a> Karl et al.'s "new" value of SST change over this interval therefore fits pretty well with our independent [3] satellite data. These data featured in IPCC AR5. (They also agree well with the Hadley Centre in situ ensemble in the same figure.) So, how new Karl et al.'s result is depends on what data you previously paid attention to. And I would still describe 0.06°C/decade as a slowdown compared to the 1980s and 1990s.</i>

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA

0
0

edbarbar | November 23, 2015 at 10:10 pm |
Those adjustments do not look random. Hard to prove it, though.

Well, the adjustments have been monotonically upward in since 2000. The post 2008 changes have been captured. What are the chances that historic temperature trend of dead data increased for 15 consecutive years?

The change is 0.25°C for the 90 year period 1910 to 2000 over a 7 year (2008 to 2015).. Lets do the math: (0.25°C * 100 years*century-1/90 years)* 100 year*century/7 years = 3.97 °C/century2 (degrees celcius per century per century) or 7.94 °C by 2100.

I have had it with the adjusters. They have only added 0.25°C so far but have 7.44 °C of damage left to do by 2100. They should not be allowed to condemn us to a hot steaming CGAGW hell. We should fire the adjusters immediately, terminate their pension rights, and ban them permanently from government service and grants. If we take quick action against global warming adjustment, we may yet be able to save ourselves.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by PA

0
0

JCH | November 23, 2015 at 7:59 pm |

No scientist would do this. They’re reaching for the zenith of their scientific careers.

Go read the climategate files. That statement is simply wrong.

However, I’m not sure what the problem is here. Given an adjustment that is at least somewhat defensible they shouldn’t be hiding their emails.

I tend to believe they are covering up some other hanky-panky or are just unbelievably arrogant and stupid.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by franktoo

0
0

Consider three or more straight lines of constant slope.

y1 = mt + b1
y2 = mt + b2
y3 = mt + b3
y4 = mt + b4

A composite record made by combining mixture of measurements y1, y2, y3 and y4 that changes with time can be adjusted to produce almost any slope by changing the offsets/biases b1, b2, b3 and b4 between the four lines. Zeke and Kevin are asserting that they can tell if offset b4 is correct by comparing y4 alone (buoys) versus a composite y1-y2-y3-y4 (ERSST v4 or v3). This appears to be nonsense. The best composite record will be created by optimizing b1, b2, b3, and b4 simultaneously, not by some piecemeal process whose final result depends on the order in which records are introduced into the composite. Lacking that, I like to be able to study all pairwise comparisons between each method of measuring SST. Hopefully, the BEST project is testing strategies for how to do this. And maybe some real scientist (i.e. one that conduct experiments rather than massaging inadequate data at their desk) will spend a year on a boat conducting experiments in different locations with various methods for measuring SSTs. Then maybe we have some solid information about engine intact, canvas buckets, and wooden buckets.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by mwgrant

0
0

If the screws are turned, they will fold. In any case ain’t no virgins involved.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

0
0

The letter clearly lists the categories of objections by the whistleblowing NOAA scientists, Tony. The specifics will come out in due time. The committee is not going to tell the NOAA stonewallers all the details. That is not how an investigation is conducted. The committee is asking the questions.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/lamar_smith_noaa_comm_letter_nov18.pdf

It’s self-explanatory. All BS aside, the NOAA is obligated to answer the committee. Period.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by cap6097

0
0

Mosher, you forgot about the whistleblowers.


Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by climateadj

0
0

It might be worth recalculating the ARGO trend. I’m getting +0.04C/dec. Not to say I’m right… it was a rather quick exercise on my part. But my graph looks almost exactly like the top frame posted by jim2 and my mean is 19.91 vs. 19.89.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

0
0

PS: Focusing on the word “rushing” is missing the point. The objections of the NOAA scientist whistleblowers are not about going fast, but about not completing steps in NOAA’s established procedures and methods. It’s all in the letter and the committee doesn’t have to explain squat to the NOAA.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Jim D

0
0

If they want to check if the whistleblowers are lying, they can check the whistleblowers emails first. Then they can separate facts from idle speculation.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Ted Carmichael

0
0

Hi, Zeke. Here is the problem I have with the Karl, et al., paper. It is trivially obvious that it is better to adjust the less certain ship data to match the more certain buoy data. So given a choice between the two, one would naturally choose to adjust the ship data. They chose to adjust the buoy data. Their justification for this is, it doesn’t matter for the long-term (“global”) trend which choice they make.

But the paper’s central result is not about the long-term trend; it is about the short-term trend (the hiatus). Does the choice matter for the short-term trend? We don’t know. If it doesn’t matter, why adjust the robust data to match the less robust data? We don’t know.

The “it doesn’t matter” statement is choice-neutral. The quality of the data points towards adjusting the ship data. Combine these two together … and they adjust the buoy data? It doesn’t make any sense. And so one is left to conclude that it DOES matter, for the central result of the paper (“there is no hiatus”), or perhaps for some other aspect of the paper, and that their conclusions are not robust to this choice.

Comment on A buoy-only sea surface temperature record by Don Monfort

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images