Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones

December 21, 2015, 10:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Willard

$

0

0

What on earth makes you think I am in any way hostile to VeeV? He has been of assistance to me and I am grateful to him. I would like it even better if he were to address this issue using his own homogenization methods.

P.S., It’s nice being covered by J N-G. At this very moment he is re-checking our metadata list. We may have to drop one of our Class 4s. Since minor TOBS shifts occur, he may want to include a TOBS-adjusted version for our unperturbed set. Nothing feeds the bulldog like a little good review.

---

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Willard

December 21, 2015, 11:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by ordvic

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones

$

0

0

> What on earth makes you think I am in any way hostile to VeeV?

Are you serious?

Here’s your lead author of this science-by-press-release episode:

Even input from openly hostile professional people, such as Victor Venema, have been highly useful, and I thank him for it.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/12/anthony-watts-agu2015-surface-stations.html

So you go first: tell me what on earth makes your lead author declare that VeeV was hostile, and I’ll see what I’ll respond to your question.

I’m not bluffing, by the way. Your question can easily get answered, but I’d rather have your team’s criteria for hostility first.

Don’t worry. NG won’t need to cover my response.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by ordvic

December 21, 2015, 11:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by ehak (@ehak1)

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Willard

$

0

0

Yes, I got one of his books on Oceans. It is tedious stuff, I don’t know what an editor can do.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by ehak (@ehak1)

December 21, 2015, 11:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by ordvic

$

0

0

Turbo:

Not so consistent according to Christy and Spencer one year ago:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/do-satellite-temperature-trends-have-a-spurious-cooling-from-clouds/#comment-155414

Now the divergence has grown.

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 12:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Paris COP21 : Tout ça pour ça ? :: RESILIENCETV

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by ehak (@ehak1)

$

0

0

Willard is a troll.

Don’t feed the trolls.

Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Paris COP21 : Tout ça pour ça ? :: RESILIENCETV

December 22, 2015, 12:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

$

0

0

[…] peut faire remarquer, comme Judith Curry qui a écrit un billet à ce sujet, qu'une telle variation de 0,2°C restera noyée dans le bruit des fluctuations et des […]

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 12:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Lomborg: Impact of Current Climate Proposals by Paris COP21 : Tout ça pour ça ? :: RESILIENCETV

$

0

0

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#QUAL

Above is a description from the horse’s mouth of all USHCN adjustments. The magnitude of each is shown in the lovely graph below which I’ve linked to many times over the years.

This is from the days when metadata alone was used to detect perturbations. Detecting perturbations via difference analysis between neighboring stations was under development at the time and is mentioned in the text.

I love the graph because it shows where and when and how much each individual method of torturing pencil whipping cleaning up the data accomplishes. Note that two methods alone account for nearly all the warming trend in the entire record – TOBS (warrantedt) and SHAP (probably not warranted).

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 1:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ehak (@ehak1)

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

$

0

0

If you’re Jim D you make generalizations about people you cannot represent. It’s what you do.

---

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ehak (@ehak1)

December 22, 2015, 1:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by David Springer

$

0

0

evan:

If you are interested in SST vs satellites, try this:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/somethings-fishy-with-global-ocean-temperature-measurements/

Non-adjusted SST too low. MSU/AMSU not in pace either.

Also MSU/AMSU vs water vapor divergence. MSU/AMSU in trouble.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/12/2015-will-be-the-3rd-warmest-year-in-the-satellite-record/#comment-203356

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 1:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ehak (@ehak1)

$

0

0

No, the consensus is that Kevin Trenberth did indeed imply the hidden heat was in the system and would have a significant effect. Even Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate wagged his finger at Kevin over it.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes

December 22, 2015, 1:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

$

0

0

Sorry wrong link - the Kennedy refutation is <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/#comment-709119" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 1:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Nick Stokes

$

0

0

Mosher re; budget deal

read harder

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

December 22, 2015, 1:30 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

$

0

0

The best available knowledge may not be the right knowledge. Certainty of a solution of a complex puzzle may not use the carefully prepared view you and others have. Pride/fall?

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 1:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ehak (@ehak1)

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

$

0

0

P.S. Mosher

Unrelated to reading the budget deal harder follows.

Renewables aren’t BS. There is a time and place for them. Texas is leading the nation in successful use of wind power. If prices drop enough on solar PV (panels & grid tie electronics) it too is a dog that will have its day.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/18/georgetown-goes-all-renewable-energy/

Georgetown is a city near me. I know it well. It’s notoriously conservative. They did the math and went all renewable.

Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ehak (@ehak1)

December 22, 2015, 1:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

$

0

0

Kevin O’Neill asks why not compare to USCRN. Only the good stations needed for that. According to Watts et al the temperature of the good stations should be lower than not so good stations in warmer years. Expand this to 2012 and check if that is the case. If so: big trouble because the result would be lower temperatures than USCRN as well:

Besides, their graph looks like this one that shows the effect of CRS-MMTS bias:

(from here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/a-cooling-bias-due-to-mmts/ )

The difference appears from the late 80ies into late 90ies. Just like the Watts presentation.

My guess is that the results from the Watts presentation has something to do with the application of their special kind of MMTS adjustment.

---

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

December 22, 2015, 1:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by ehak (@ehak1)

$

0

0

I suspect the majority of the differences between Satellite and Thermometer are to do with the fact they are looking at the same ‘temperature field’ from two different points of view.

One a static point sampling instrument with extrapolation/interpolation to measure the ‘field’.

The other a moving volume sampling instrument integrating whole slices in one step.

Both ‘see’ the same thing, just from different viewpoints.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

December 22, 2015, 1:58 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

$

0

0

Sorry, that should have been ‘estimate the field’

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

December 22, 2015, 2:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Bob Tisdale

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by RichardLH

$

0

0

http://www.utilitydive.com/news/congress-strikes-deal-to-extend-wind-solar-tax-credits-and-lift-oil-export/410947/

Wind, solar, and Big Oil all have something to cheer about in 2016 US budget.

It’s probably what’s called a revenue-neutral deal between liberals and conservatives in congress. Any tax revenues lost from extending tax incentives to wind and solar power would be negated by increase in tax revenue from lifting the 40-year ban on oil exports.

You don’t hear environmentalists cheering $35/bbl crude much, eh? US gasoline price at the pump near me is $1.65 gallon. Allowing US producers to export crude keeps their profits up, global supply up, and prices down. Life is good.

P.S. Drill baby drill.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Bob Tisdale

December 22, 2015, 2:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by robertok06

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by David Springer

$

0

0

Thanks, AK.

Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by robertok06

December 22, 2015, 2:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)

≪ Previous: Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Bob Tisdale

$

0

0

@david springer

“Georgetown is a city near me. I know it well. It’s notoriously conservative. They did the math and went all renewable.”

Sorry, but the link you provided did not give proof of the statement in the title… nobody can go 100% fossil-free using only PV and wind, it is physically impossible to do it, since during any year in any place on earth there are many hours when there’s neither wind nor sunshine.
The math they did is deeply flawed, to say the least.
Please do not buy into this green propaganda!…