Hard to tell if you are commenting on CAGW. If you aren’t then obfuscation is the the order of the day.
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by wanttobegalt
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
Mmmm. yes, yes, yes, yes (distribution is spotty to lousy).
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
A metaphysically correct comment. Heh.
But Dig We Must.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by Steven Mosher
“That is the problem. It IS an estimation. With error bands and uncertainties all around. In 3D. From point sampled data.
I rather do understand what is done and why it is done. I challenge the certainty that is placed on it.”
##############
it is not in 3D.
simple example.
I measure the temp here at my house. 54F. 2meters off the ground
I measure the temp at your house 57F. 2 meters off the ground.
I measure the temp at a third point 60F. 2 meters off the ground
The task is to predict the temp at all x,y locations within that triangle
AT 2 meters.
That will have uncertainty. you calculate that as well.
Then you can test. go ahead.
↧
Comment on What is there a 97% consensus about? by wanttobegalt
It is important to point out that bureaucratic functionaries and their leadership are always a stifling drag on freedom, living standards, and life.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
Agree with your initial points. Your other points, while correct, are not the main point.
They want to know how fast the surface is warming. So that’s what we are trying to best determine. One tends to be less concerned (except in an academic sense) with the earth’s cooling “as a whole”, core included.
Satellite is a good proxy for surface, but LT annual trend varies a bit less (yet has higher trend). More ups and downs in play on the surface, but slightly lesser trend. That’s the “basic physics” viewpoint.
This is borne out by our unperturbed Class 1\2 set, which clocks in just below UAH and RSS.
It is especially true for the MMTS-majority subset, which further supports the notion that it is the CRS boxes that need the primary adjustment, not MMTS). It may be true MMTS needs some adjustment. But that would be chump change compared with what’s gone wrong with CRS. And if CRS is off the beam, that throws the whole pre-MMTS era record into serious question.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by omanuel
Thank you, Jim Steele, for taking the time to research and explain another exaggerated conclusion from NOAA.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
Mosh is correct. The term “perturbed” means a station with (as far as we can determine) clean metadata. It does not mean clean microsite.
“Compliant” means Class 1\2 (Leroy puts the microsite offset effect at zero for both).
“Non-compliant” means
If we know the location of a station after a recorded move (HOMR seems quite good with this, and so they should be), but do not know what the microsite was prior to the move (a very large number), we drop the station. That removes most of the Before-after issue (though I am sure it is not 100%).
If the HOMR metadata indictes a TOBS flip (AM to PM or PM to AM 10% of the way within the series interval), we drop the station. If there is a blip in the middle, but it goes back to what it was, if it is not badly skewed, we retain the station, because such a blip will not materially effect trend. (Note that a centered blip in a longer time series may not be centered in a shorter series, and we’d have to drop it. Etc. It’s all relative.)
HOMR is very good on TOBS. After all, all they have to do is transcribe it from the B-91s (which are archived as PDFs online).
J N-G is looking for major discrepancies in TOBS-adjusted vs. Raw data for some stations, and we may prune our set slightly. So far we’ve lost a couple, but no Class 1\2s, so no material effect. Some we may include but flag (so’s you-all can remove them if you like).
That is our basic method.
The advantage of NOAA is that it is organizationally stable. No regime change, you know. Inter alia. So, at least during our study period, we have good, consistent records, among the best, if not the best that the world has to offer.
————————————————————–
Anyhoo. We got the sweet spot in terms of distribution, data, and metadata. The further back you go, of course, the worse it gets.
Poor Mosh! What a tangle that he has to deal with that I do not. Not only does he have the older USHCN’s ubiquitous “-9999s” to deal with an all those “Quien Sabe” notations in the metadata boxes, but he as the whore RoW’s problems on his shoulders.
He does it the way he does it because there is no other way to do it. We can afford to (and do) drop our known perturbed stations. Mosh (and the VeeV) cannot. They cannot. The RoW distribution sucks, so they can’t afford to drop the perturbed stations. Just can’t.
So he must adjust them. And since metadata is severely lacking, he is compelled to infer that from the data. It’s the tail wagging the dog, but he has no other option.
And, besides, that is what I am doing, in effect, inre. homogenization, anyway — inferring from our findings.
I also infer, in much the same manner, that the HOMR metadata is relatively clean: The data (upterturbed, compliant v. non-compliant) shows a relatively gradual divergence, not a series of discordant jumps which would occur if our results were an artifact of bad or missing metadata. So in addition to the HOMR USHCN metadata looking good, it acts good, too, when we crack the whip a little.
All that is inference — very good inference, think. And, given the circumstances, unavoidable. Now maybe the body on the floor with a knife sticking out his back is actually a clever suicide and not a murder. Or maybe he was cleverly poisoned and then stabbed to cover up the needle hole. Until the forsensic team (VeeV, Mosh, Zeke, et al.) gives it a much hairier eyeball, we cannot know for sure. But for whatever reaon, there it is, dead on the floor. I think it’s horses, not zebras this time.
I am not against inference when it cannot be avoided. A missing datapoint is a missing datapoint. You might say that one of the goal of our project is to improve current methods of inference.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by evanmjones
Okay, a Freudian slip there. But my subconscious meant it.
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by NOAA fails walrus science | Enjeux énergies et environnement
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Stephen Wilde
More evidence that out in the real world, if CO2 does indeed cause some trivial global warming, the effects are all good for the biosphere including humans.
What is not to like in the greening of the Sahara and the potential opening up for agriculture of vast regions of Canada and Russia that are currently useless ?
The human population is expected to peak and then begin to decline on a voluntary basis before the end of this century so warming that helps agriculture would help to get us past that peak into that new scenario of a naturally declining and steadily more sustainable global population.
Environmentalists are the problem more than our CO2 emissions. They seek to keep billions in poverty so that reproduction rates increase again as poor populations try to provide for themselves in old age via more children and thereby defer indefinitely that most desireable scenario.
Humans are the only species that will voluntarily reduce reproduction rates if individuals become wealthy and educated enough to maintain themselves in old age from their own resources.
The current form of environmental activism is potentially a crime against both humanity and nature.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Mike Flynn
Jim Steele,
Thanks. It looks like NOAA is based on the principle that CO2 is evil, and everything in the known universe is going to the devil as a result of evil CO2.
I suppose if your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, to use a very poor analogy.
Don’t these people realise that walruses are carnivores, and greedy to boot? As they voraciously consume their food supply with no thought for tomorrow, they eventually suffer the consequences. Less food, less walruses, the clams and such probably recover, and off we go again. Maybe.
History shows more than 99% of all species which have ever existed are extinct. Maybe the interrelation between life forms is a wee bit more complicated than the simpletons at NOAA imagine. Toy models and Warmist fanaticism don’t seem to fare too well against reality, do they?
What next? Pictures of other pinnipeds such as elephant seals sunning themselves on the rocks and sand in Antarctica will be shown “proving” the dire effects of CO2 taking away the ice. What piffle!
Species come. Species go. Weather changes, so does climate. Plants love CO2. Animals feed on plants. More CO2 seems like a good thing. Maybe that’s why Nature stored a whole lot of CO2 away as fossil fuel, so that humans could put it back into the atmosphere!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by beththeserf
‘Walrus foraging? Now we’re entering Lewis Carrol zone.
↧
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by beththeserf
… with one ‘l’ missing.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by RichardLH
“Nyquist doesn’t apply”
Those words as uttered by a respected Climate Scientist are indicative, not only of staggering lack of understanding of what is being done to his data, applies to not only his work but apparently of the whole field.
Nyquist applies to every picture you take, every chart you draw, every calculation you make, every machine you build.
To say it doesn’t denies science.
GIGO is not just a phrase, it is a real and living danger in all we do.
Each pixel in a photograph, each point you place on a chart, etc. have at their core Nyquist. It displays ignorance, not intelligence to make the claim that his work is irrelevant.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by RichardLH
“it is not in 3D.”
OK, so I live on a 2D piece of paper apparently.
Of course it is 3D. The world we live in and measure is 3D. Stop now whilst your still ahead.
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by RichardLH
“2 meters off the ground” Re-read your own words. That is a 3D statement.
↧
↧
Comment on Watts et al.: Temperature station siting matters by RichardLH
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
@beth
Llewis? A good Welsh name, look you…..
↧
Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Latimer Alder (@latimeralder)
Glad to see that I’m not alone in the idea that more CO2 is a Good Thing.
It is indeed the Gas of Green.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
