Victor Venema: <i>"Sherwood and colleagues have generated a new radiosonde dataset, removing artificial instrumental changes as well as they could."</i>
Did they Mannipulate the data using AlGore-ithms running on <strike>computer games</strike> climate models, Victor?
One day you and your colleagues will be held to account.
Think on that.
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by catweazle666
↧
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by jim2
Merry Christmas. This is an interesting development. It’s been going on for a while, but I just spotted it. From the article:
…
his is, indeed, the biggest environmental catastrophe since the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010; and for now, there is no way to stop it.
This methane disaster is worse than can be sufficiently described in words, because while it’s estimated well over 100,000 pounds of methane spew into the atmosphere every hour, the leak can’t be halted, at least until spring. Even then, that stoppage depends entirely on the efficacy of a proposed fix — which remains a dubiously open question.
According to the California Air Resources Board, methane — a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide — has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent “to a volcanic eruption” for about two months now. So far, the total leaked gas measures somewhere around 100,000 tons — adding “approximately one-quarter to the regular statewide methane emissions” during that same time frame.
“The relative magnitude of emissions from the leak compared to other sources of methane in the State underscores the urgency of stopping the gas leak. This comes on top of any problems caused by odor and any potential impacts from exposure,” states the initial report on the Aliso leak by air quality officials.
“The enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping. As the pressure from the weight on top of the pipe causes the gas to diffuse, it only continues to dissipate across a wider and wider area,” explained Erin Brockovich, who spent time in nearby Porter Ranch investigating the leak.
…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-24/unstoppable-california-gas-leak-now-being-called-worst-catastrophe-bp-spill
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma? by PA
knutesea | December 24, 2015 at 9:34 pm |
The answer is no, you would not trust the broker. The part you may be overlooking is that the marketing of CAGW overcame weak by trumpeting up the risk that it MIGHT be true so we HAVE to address the chance.
CAGW advocates basically propose that we need to cut off an arm in response to a paper cut. The theory is that the cut “might” get infected and we might die from septic poisoning. This is called the precautionary principle.
The problem is so serious and urgent that we need to cut off the arm immediately, we are told.
Now, reasonable people respond to these sorts of requests with a “whoa now”. Given that it is been a couple of days (the pause) and the finger doesn’t look that red, perhaps we have time for a second opinion and can save the surgery for when we know there is a problem.
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by bedeverethewise
Might be an argument for combined heat and power, but not solar. Solar has a few niche applications north of the Mason Dixon line.
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by opluso
Given that the standard error is derived from the standard deviation I keep wondering what the fuss is all about.
Nevertheless, with the possible exception of this particular sub-debate over Karl (2015), everyone seems to agree that you cannot conduct proper climate science without frequent reference to standard deviations.
For example, when Kennedy presented his original findings on co-located ship/buoy pairs in Table 5, he showed global differences (average bias = 0.12) along with regional differences (ranging from an average bias of 0.05 to 0.23). But he also presented each respective set’s standard deviation (ranging from 0.43 to 0.94) together with the respective standard error calculations (from 0.01 to 0.1).
A key precursor to Karl (2015), Huang (2015), relies upon standard deviations for many crucial steps. The paper simply couldn’t have been written without them because they contain such important information.
For example, the quality control check for sea surface temperature data in Huang (2015) utilizes the standard deviations:
The SSTs from ships or buoys were accepted (rejected) under a QC criterion that observed SSTs differ from the first-guess SST from ERSST.v3b by less (more) than 4 times standard deviation (STD) of SST.
However, at one point, Huang presents a standard deviation for ship/buoy differences in a particular period (using 1990-2012 instead of Kennedy’s 1998-2007) but the “STD” turns out to be surprisingly small. I assume this is a typo and Huang was actually referring to the standard error for some reason?
The mean difference of ship-buoy data between 1990 and 2012 is 0.12C with a STD of 0.04C (all rounded to hundredths in precision).
Kent
↧
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by bedeverethewise
coo coo cachoo
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by bedeverethewise
So Cratchit didn’t really need that extra piece of coal.
↧
Comment on Senate Hearing: Data or Dogma? by knutesea
Yes, PA … a fine example.
Skeptics have a ton of solid information to present. They did get caught with their pants down in a blitzkrieg move (Gore movie was the turning point) by the warmists. Too many normally independent thinking people accepted the sales pitch because if a scientists says it, it’s true.
Obviously what they did is not unusual when moving folks in the direction desired.
Taking your example, the patient appears to be stable but the health care system has sunk their teeth into him for numerous investigatory tests and resulting confirmations. Fortunately for the health care system, the patient has a ready source of income where he doesn’t notice how much this is costing. It’s slow, it’s steady but doesn’t currently impact his life. They did find something unusual such as a high pseudomonas count and in an abundance of caution are recommending he alter his lifestyle in a manner that will likely cause instability and yet more loss of wealth … and may or may not diminish hiss common bacteria count. Too busy to be bothered, the patient signs over further permissions to the health care system to manage his life.
There are several paths here :
1. The slow steady drip drip of mind numbing research into deeper and deeper rabbit holes until folks just lose interest.
2. An awakening by the patient that this is costing him an assload of wealth and NOT worth it.
3. Something else occurs that requires a great deal of the nation’s wealth and attention which relegates climate change to a meaningless program.
The larger the group of humans the more likely the path of leat resistance takes over. It’s likely that unless number 3 takes over, mind numbing rabbit hole reach will continue and a slow steady crawl to some type of significantly reduced fossil fuel world will proceed. The art that warmists have to execute is a slow bleed until the shift in energy production has occurred.
Since when it’s not about money and power, it is about money and power it appears to me that the best clues are given by top tier early energy profiteers. Gates et al want to be the packaged nuke plant rulers of the planet. It would cement their position of power much in the same way oil did for the early oil barron’s and saudis.
What do you think ?
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by Willis Eschenbach
Mmmm ... it is a methane leak, and should be stopped, but the "biggest environmental catastrophe since the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico"?
Please point to one single human, or mammal, or bird, or fish, or even a bug that has been killed by the escaping methane.
Next, the global emissions of CH4 are about 770 million tonnes per year. The methane leak to date is about 100,000 tonnes, which is about one-hundreth of one percent of total emissions ... and you're worried?
Finally, the person whining about the hundredth of one percent increase in methane is Erin Brockovich ... and if you don't know about the lies she's told in the past (and profited from) see <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/12/the-messy-truth-about-erin-brockovich.html" rel="nofollow"><b>here</a></b>, <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/brockovich.html" rel="nofollow"><b>here</a></b>, and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/" rel="nofollow"><b>here</a></b>.
So no ... it's not an "ecological disaster", not even a small one, no matter how much money Erin Brockovich thinks she can make by peddling more lies.
w.
↧
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by PeteBonk
Family in Michigan experienced the same pre Christmas storm in 2013 Steve McIntyre described. I live in the northeast, and have always wondered why diesel generators are not more available and popular. Natural gas is not always available- I don’t have service- but I do have a 250 gallon tank of heating oil. Nat gas backup would be best, but lots of folks have gasoline back up generators, with its issues of safety, power out means gas stations will be closed, etc.
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by PeteBonk
Merry Christmas to Dr Curry and the rest of the Denizens!
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Harry Snape (@HarryFromSyd)
Geoff regarding that xls of “pristine sites”, I just looked at one, Willis Island, and it seems to have undergone significant changes over the period in your spreadsheet.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/0616.html
Note change to AWS just as the temperature takes off.
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/0612.html points out that the island had trees in 1947.
The meteorology buildings have undergone significant expansion across the latter half of last century, note the earlier accounts pointing to a lack of freezers, fresh meat etc. No longer true. Plus the island is part of a P&O liner drive-by for the purposes of duty-free shopping – no details what this means.
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by -1=e^iπ
That article made me rage, wow.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate models versus climate reality by Punksta
Yes,Ceist Alles, tobacco-funded spin saying smoking is safe, is exactly like government-funded man-made global warming spin. It’s all about vested interest of the funder.
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by Mike Flynn
Many scientists have a somewhat irrational aversion to chaos. However, chaos rears its chaotic head here, there, and everywhere. The logistic equation can model animal populations rather well, so it should be beloved of Warmists.
However, it also demonstrates a very simple equation which has unpredictable outcomes ranging from steady state, to regular oscillations, to chaos. The final state cannot be predicted from knowledge of the initial value, working from first principles.
Maybe NOAA scientists just refuse to accept reality. If walrus populations behave chaotically, as do others, then ascribing a population increase or decline to anything other than chaos, without an extraordinary standard of proof is more fanaticism than science. Nature has ways of making fools of us all, given the right circumstances.
Of course, given that more than 99% of all species which ever existed before the advent of Man, are now extinct, then this population may be joining the long list of the no longer with us. Who knows?
It seems climatologists have access to arcane knowledge kept secret from real scientists, such as biologists. Pity they don’t share it.
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Punksta
Mosher : <i>Getting data from skeptics.. Even sub samples… Even with a promise of nda??? ZERO DATA</i>
How much data do they actually have to give though? Or to put it another way, how much government funding do they actually have at their disposal?
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by Horst Graben (@Graben_Horst)
W. I have to say I’m quite smitten with your People magazine treatment of Erin Brockovich. That takes real talent and guts to post completely irrelevant links that don’t even support your petty diversion. Bravo. It’s a definite theme employed by the WUWT stable of sciency-doers that coun’t you as the most bloviatious. Just one little nit ti, I thought you and your fellow pro-pollution cheerleaders claimed that BP Horizon was not a disaster, but was good for the ecosystem by providing valuable nutrients to the beneficial bacteria of the GOM marine environment. Hell, only dirt-bags eat tuna from the Gulf, so what’s the problem, am I right? Let them eat catfish!
For this harmless little gas leak, only 2,150 families had to relocate and a couple schools were closed down to avoid health effects associated chronic exposures to methane, methyl mercaptan and other trace gases. That’s hardly a disaster since they will be able to go home after the leak is fixed in March. Who knows how long after that they will have to wait to go back home, it’s like they are getting an extra long vacation. Also, I’m sure they won’t have any trouble at all selling their homes in the future. Since everything is harmless as you imply, it’s probably not disclosable in a real estate transaction.
It must be a difficult burden, Willis, to be blessed by a superior intellect spawned from narcissistic personality disorder because of the constant nagging of silly and shallow little people whom expect you to recognize a disaster when it doesn’t even effect you or your immediate circle of fans. Most people have not evolved like you beyond the quaint bourgeois notions of honesty and discretion.
When Don Don finishes prepping Christmas dinner, perhaps he will stop by and give you the same treatment you gave to Erin by reminding us of your valor and integrity: What is good for the goose is gooder for the gander.
– all the best –
↧
↧
Comment on Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus by Punksta
Mosher 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.
Yeah, actual scientists don’t write no stinkin’ books.
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by Willis Eschenbach
Horst says:
W. I have to say I’m quite smitten with your People magazine treatment of Erin Brockovich. That takes real talent and guts to post completely irrelevant links that don’t even support your petty diversion.
Since you haven’t pointed out even one incorrect claim in the information I posted about Erin Brockovich, I fear your response is meaningless posturing. Come back when you have facts instead, and we can discuss it. You seem to think that she is Julia Roberts. She is not.
You go on to lie about what I’ve said:
“Just one little nit ti, I thought you and your fellow pro-pollution cheerleaders claimed that BP Horizon was not a disaster, but was good for the ecosystem by providing valuable nutrients to the beneficial bacteria of the GOM marine environment.”
Since I never said that or anything even remotely resembling that, you are simply lying about me and what I said. Lying about what people said won’t get you any traction, here or elsewhere.
Yes, as I said, the methane leak is a problem and it should be stopped. But comparing it to the BP blowout in the Gulf is a sick joke. And once again you lie when you say:
“Since everything is harmless as you imply, it’s probably not disclosable in a real estate transaction.”
I SPECIFICALLY SAID IT WAS A PROBLEM AND THE LEAK NEEDS TO BE PLUGGED, and you lie about that and claim I said it was “harmless”. I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that I doubted that you or anyone else could point to one creature that has died from the methane leak … and meanwhile, the BP leak killed thousands and thousands of creatures great and small and polluted nearby landscapes, some for years. Equivalent? Don’t make me laugh.
Seriously, Horst, if you want to discuss the issues I’m happy to do so. But simply puffing your chest out and launching ad hominem attacks, while flat out lying about what I said, marks you as nothing more than a pathetic poseur.
Now, you could remove that mark by actually providing some evidence to back up your claims, and by actually quoting what I did say instead of lying about what I didn’t say.
Or you could keep up your charade with more lies and personal attacks.
Your choice …
w.
↧
Comment on The Climate of XMAS by David Springer
If you have natural gas then light up some burners on the kitchen stove. Don’t need electricity for that.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
