So let’s wait until publication to see how important this is.
Judging from Victor’s post, it could be a long wait yet, but we’ll see.
Watts’ conspiracy ideation you quote is amusing.
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by verytallguy
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models versus climate reality by paulski0
Based on a typical predictable response to a strong El Nino.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Joshua
AK –
Substantial harm. Significant harm.
Use your own freaking definition. What was the material, substantial, significant harm caused to Anthony in the past? From what you wrote, it seems that someone used the data to try to discredit his work, and according to your excerpt, they failed to do so.
Do you consider that to be material/substantial/significant harm?
↧
Comment on The new climate ‘deniers’ by knutesea
Denialists are people who inhabit their fictions and run from the truth. They don’t believe there was a Holocaust or a final solution; they insist, despite indisputable molecular evidence, as well as the deaths of tens of millions of people, that AIDS is not caused by H.I.V. They are people who believe that angels are real and that evolution is false.
It intrigues me that religious beliefs are being dragged into the definition of the inflammatory word, denier. I noticed how he weaved back and forth between fact based evidence and belief. An unaware listener gets sucked into applying the insult to someone who rejects a fact based on evidence with beliefs.
Very nasty mindf____king right there folks.
Could be an early sign of presidential GOP vs Dem political strategy.
I so Markey inartfully try to wip this one at you in his rant.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)
I had to look it up, very usable!
Per Harry Potter: Arithmancy is an elective subject offered from the third year on at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Little is known about the class, but the study of Arithmancy has been described as “predicting the future using numbers,” with “bit of numerology” as well.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by catweazle666
Stevem Mosher: “The bottom line is that Anthony and evan are not doing science.”
Anthony and his colleagues have really thrown a scare into you and your friends Venemous and that silly woman with a fantasy about Hot Whoppers haven’t they Mosher?
There is a school of thought that believes you would not recognise science if it bit you on the rump.
But “science” now, that’s a different thing altogether.
↧
Comment on Climate models versus climate reality by Mark Goldfinch
“So, why no Hot Spot?”
In a word, convection. As soon as a “hot spot” starts to form, it becomes lighter (less dense) than the surrounding air and starts to rise. This is how clouds form, too. Cooler surrounding air moves in to replace it. Once the warm air has risen enough, it will start to cool. There are gigantic convection currents moving hot air from the tropics north and south across the planet. This is why there are large bands of dry, arid, even desert land where they come down, now without moisture that they dropped on their journey.
In other words, with a proper understanding of atmospheric physics, you can’t make a mistake like the current generation of climate modellers has. That’s just mistake #1. Mistake #2 was to modify the historical data record to conceal mistake #1.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by itsnotco2
What correct physics is telling us is explained <a href="https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">here</a> where you are invited to make a submission for a reward of several thousand dollars if you can prove the thermodynamics wrong and produce a study showing opposite results to mine which showed that more moist regions have both lower daily maximum and minimum temperatures than drier regions at similar latitude and altitude.
Q.1: What is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapor in the atmosphere?
Q.2: Based on your answer to Q.1, how much warming does a mean of 1.25% of water vapor produce?
Q.3: Also based on the above, how much hotter should be a rain forest with 4% WV compared with a dry region with 1% WV?
Q.4: Taking into account the fact that solar radiation reaching Earth's surface ranges between zero and about 1,000W/m^2 with a mean between 160 and 170W/m^2 and that radiation from the colder atmosphere is known not to penetrate water more than a few nanometers (thus unable to "warm" it) explain, using the Stefan Boltzmann equation and a typical range of flux between 0 and 1,000W/m^2 how the ocean surface reaches observed temperatures.
For answers, study the new 21st century paradigm shift in climate change science which will be widely publicized in 2017 and common knowledge by 2025 whilst the current hiatus continues until about 2028 to 2030. Long-term (500 year) natural cooling will start before 2100 and mean temperatures will not rise more than about 0.4 to 0.6 degree before the cooling starts, as shown <a href="http://climate-change-theory.com" rel="nofollow">here</a>.
Who's next to take me on?
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Jim D
Warming even more, if anything, in unpopulated areas. Not what Watts would want to see, for sure.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Jim D
There has already been an effort by skeptics to do the temperature series from scratch. It was joined by Watts and Curry, and Mosher, who was more skeptical back then, and a few well respected statisticians, Rohde and Hausfather, and it was sparked by Climategate and a general mistrust of Jones and his CRUTEM datasets. Anyway, they ended up confirming that Jones was basically right, Watts and Curry bailed and prefer not to talk about their involvement with BEST, and we are here now with Watts trying something again to see if he can get a better answer this time.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by oneillsinwisconsin
<a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/08/26/the-fruitarians-are-lazy/#comment-50358" rel="nofollow">Evan Jones 2014/09/11</a>: "<i>We will, of course, be hitting it from the physics angle, as well. So it won’t be a statistics-only study. It will be backed by a mechanism that explains why and how (and to what extent) this occurs.</i>"
Neither the AGU poster nor the press release hint at finding an actual physical mechanism.
There *is* a known physical mechanism that produces similar results and has already been written up in the scientific literature - Hubbard & Lin (2004),Air Temperature Comparison between the MMTS and the USCRN Temperature Systems.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Brian G Valentine
Jim you get worse by the day, you sound like a conspiracy theorist
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by sciguy54
Rud
Thanks for the pointer to your August post at WUWT. I believe I was out of pocket that week so I had missed it.
You noted:
“One could either cool the present to remove UHI or warm the past (inserting artificial UHI for trend comparison purposes). Warming the past is less discordant with the reported present (the UHI correction less noticeable), so preferred by GISS.”
Whenever I get clever and do something backwards for the sake of convenience, it comes back to haunt me. Maybe I am unlucky or just not so smart as Karl or the climate crew at Goddard. In any case, warning flags start waving in my mind when something is done backwards.
In this case I am not sure why correcting for UHI is “discordant”. I see temperatures reported with “wind chill” all the time, resulting in huge deltas from the actual measured temperature. The public seems to understand the premise of “wind chill” and are comfortable with such reportage, so I would be surprised if folks had difficulty with temperatures reported “as measured” and also “as corrected” for siting issues.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Joel Williams
Nice plot: http://www.climate-change-theory.com/planetcycles.jpg
When do you expect the next deep freeze that empties 125m of water from the seas to ice in the polar and N/S latitudes per the Ice Core 120,000y cycling pattern? And what will drive things below the LIAs as you have presented?
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Turbulent Eddie
<i>Warming even more, if anything, in unpopulated areas. Not what Watts would want to see, for sure.</i>
The greatest warming seems to be in un<i><b>measured</b></i> areas.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Turbulent Eddie
To my knowledge, nobody has done a complete site survey like this before. Watts deserves a lot of credit for the idea and follow through.
Now, the details and results remain to be seen.
But it appears that <i>all</i> the analyses include crap stations, kinda similar to the sub-prime mess when bad loans were <i>homogenized</i> into the Collateralized Debt Obligations.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Willard
> http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/#comment-345345
I don’t think Ron’s and Nick’s questions have been unanswered on that thread.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models versus climate reality by Nick Stokes
The graph shows the difference between current GISS and versions of 2011 and 2005. The data is <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt" rel="nofollow">here</a>. You can find wayback versions.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher
Sorry David that was not the promise. Every promise made was kept.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Jim D
You can have the best site in the world, but if you change your thermometer or time of ob without accounting for it, you’re screwed. BEST had a way of detecting these using neighbors. Watts? I am not sure what he does?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
