Nick Stokes:
I believe the 1.7C comes from doubling Kennedy’s standard deviation of 0.85C as found in Table 5 of Kennedy (2011) part 2.
Kent
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by opluso
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
Why?
Hmm. Let’s see … Because they are a stereotypical result of homogenization applied to a dataset containing a systematic error? Because there is an identified systematic error evident?
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
<i>There is no way they could have competently worked so long and hard on surface station temperature series adjustments without having noticed that unperturbed stations showed a greatly reduced warming trend in the US.</i>
As they were not considering microsite and had no easy way of determining it, anyway, it was a very easy mistake and natural to make. I make that sort of mistake all the time. Mistakes are allowed.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by willard (@nevaudit)
> Hmm. Let’s see …
Clicking on the correct “reply” helps, otherwise Judy’s comment threads become quite raw.
***
> Because they are a stereotypical result of homogenization applied to a dataset containing a systematic error? Because there is an identified systematic error evident?
It doesn’t answer the question as to why “VeeV” would need to explain why the two numbers are similar.
I doubt NG got you covered for that kind of rhetorical questions, Evan.
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by popesclimatetheory
The earth is slowing less than it used to when the earth was warming more..
NO!
Shorter length of day does mean the Earth Spin Rate is faster than it was 40 years ago. That does mean that sea level did drop. Increasing sea level would have slowed the earth and increased Length of Day. That did not happen.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes
“Table 5 of Kennedy (2011) part 2”
Well, first he said it isn’t in part 2 but part 1. Then he said, I think, no, in the 2013 paper. But OK, say that really is it. It isn’t the uncertainty of any adjustment. It (0.85) is the standard deviation of individual pairs of observations. It isn’t the uncertainty in the quoted mean bias of 0.12°C. Kennedy does give that uncertainty measure right there – it is the standard error of that mean, SE=0.01°C.
I don’t think that can be what he meant. I hope not.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Jim D
Nick, it is. McKitrick made the same claim back here.
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick_comments_on_karl2015_r1.pdf
and was taken to task on it by a college kid here.
http://michiganssa.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-first-look-at-ross-mckitricks-first.html
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick (@ledooze)
As a non-scientific follower of CE, I read nearly every post and glean a great deal from most. I found this post very difficult to follow. I’m guilty of wishing Bob had an editor, though I understand that resources are not free.
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes
Jim D,
“Nick, it is.”
My hopes are dashed. It seems this stuff goes around the echo chamber so much that people lose track of where it came from. The college kid is right, of course. It’s obvious when Table 5 lists the various (12) sub-regions. You’d expect them to vary a bit more than the global SE, and they do, from .05 to 0.21. Nothing like a range of 1.7.
Ross does make a lot of these bungles. And sceptics don’t seem to check.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
<i>It doesn’t answer the question as to why “VeeV” would need to explain why the two numbers are similar.</i>
Are you serious?
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Steven Mosher
“Steven – you are the one who thinks they get to decide who wins the thread. I have seen that comment numerous times.”
Err no. giving your opinion of who wins the thread does not decide who wins the thread. some people say +1, some say +100. That means
“I like and agree with what you said”. The superlative of that is
‘You win the thread” or “You win the internet”
Nevertheless the point remains. None of us are deciders. If we were,
the last budget would have never passed. And so despite my luke warmism, and despite your skepticism, actions were taken.
I will continue to tell you guys that if you want influence you have to join the fight in science. Sitting outside the ring sniping and throwing fruit
gets you nowhere..
Look at Rud. Look at all the energy he poured into his books. Imagine if he applied his skills on the actual battlefield of science. Same with other skeptics I read. I see it as a huge waste of talent.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Steven Mosher
Hi david.
I’m not talking about paris. I’m talking about the budget deal.
It sure looks like the republicans bought the BS on renewables.
how many Billion?
They didnt listen to you. me either.. but there you go.
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by beththeserf
‘ South Pacific’ …and other deep_ocean missing warmth.
‘ How does it get there
who can tell you why?
Fools give you reasons,
wise men never try .’
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes
“you are the one who thinks they get to decide who wins the thread.”
You can’t win the thread if you uncritically echo totally junk figures like the one that set it off. Or if you think you do, it isn’t worth anything.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
<i>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?</i>
We use metadata (TOBS listed for each station). All BEST does is detect jumps, and then assumes it is a TOBS flip. But sometimes jumps just happen. Sometimes it gets warmer in a particular spot <i>because</i> it got cooler nearby. (That is one reason I am leery of pairwise even if I have to use it.)
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Steven Mosher
except the uncertainty isnt 1.7. Opps.. I guess you should have been more skeptical
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by JCH
<i>If the heat is diffused in the ocean so much it can’t be found then it’s not going to effect surface temperature in any significant way because, due to law of entropy, it can never be undiffused to warm the surface layer. Whether Trenberth is right or not is academic.</i>
This is why it was just plain stoopud to accuse Trenberth of ever meaning this. He never said the missing heat would be found in the abyssal ocean., so claiming he was envisioning the heat reforming and blasting to the surface (coming back to haunt) was great fun, but entirely pointless.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes
I see that we have been through all this <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-708946" rel="nofollow">here before</a>. John Kennedy himself <a href="http://twitter.com/micefearboggis" rel="nofollow">refuted it</a>. Rather too gently, I thought. Victor Venema was <a href="http://michiganssa.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-first-look-at-ross-mckitricks-first.html?showComment=1433632159323#c1107944604750274551" rel="nofollow">more to the point:</a>
<blockquote>A statistician confusing the sample standard deviation and the standard error of the mean, that is quite something. Scary what mitigation scepticism does to a person.
</blockquote>
And yet, even when pointed out, he just <a href="http://michiganssa.blogspot.com/2015/06/a-first-look-at-ross-mckitricks-first.html?showComment=1433785442857#c3526256099401683510" rel="nofollow">didn't get it at all</a>.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Willard
> Are you serious?
As much as this science-by-press release can be but contingent on how long you’ll continue arguing by questions and how much your teases towards VeeV are covered by NG’s work, Evan.
Should I speak of open hostility instead of tease?
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
