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

December 29, 2015, 4:35 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by edimbukvarevic

$

0

0

Parked cars are deathtraps for dogs: On a 78-degree day, the temperature inside a parked car can soar to between 100 and 120 degrees in just minutes, and on a 90-degree day, the interior temperature can reach as high as 160 degrees in less than 10 minutes.

An example with “real numbers” (allegedly).

So outside the car over time (under a day in this case) of from 78 to 90 is compared with an inside-the-car increase from 120F to 160F. That is a 12F increase vs. a 40F increase inside the car.

The heat sink (the car) is warming at over twice the rate, the trend inside the car as it is outside the car.

We are, by analogy, measuring our temps largely from inside the car. And, yeah, the car cools faster at the same rate during the subsequent “cooling phase”.

So if there is no overall trend, there will be no divergence in trend as a result of spurious heat sink effect. But if there is a trend, either cooling or warming, that trend will be exaggerated.

---

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

December 29, 2015, 4:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by JCH

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

$

0

0

This is from an RACQ test involving real vehicles, temperature sensors here and there, reasonably well controlled conditions –

“”Both vehicles rose to ambient, exceeded 40°C and reached their peak temperatures of 57.3°C and 60.4°C in a very similar time, regardless of the paint colour. Therefore colour has negligible impact on the rate of temperature rise. At their peak, the temperatures of the two vehicles were only 3.1°C apart, suggesting that paint colour also has insignificant impact on peak interior temperatures.”

One vehicle was dark blue, the other white. Other experiments, (rather than models and assumptions) arrive at the same conclusions. Maybe not what people expect, but true nevertheless. Some assumptions by Warmists fall into the same category.

Regardless of albedo, absorptivity and so on, two bodies at the same temperature cannot be distinguished by virtue of temperature alone. It matters not what rate the body absorbs radiation, or what frequency this radiation is.

As a very simple example, two bodies at 0K emit no radiation whatsoever. People eventually accept this, but claim that a matt black body at say 50 C is somehow warmer than a shiny reflective body at the same temperature. Just not true.

And so it is with CO2, O2, Fe, or anything else. Fact trumps fantasy every time. The rate of temperature change relative to the absorbed radiation, is, of course a different matter. Things are often not as straight forward as one might hope. Even the impact of thermometer enclosure absorptivity may not have the impact on recorded max and min temperature that one might expect, or even worse, adjust for.

Experimentation, rather than jawboning, settles the matter. Where are the experiments?

Cheers.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by JCH

December 29, 2015, 4:48 am

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

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

$

0

0

Lol:

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

December 29, 2015, 5:12 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by JCH

$

0

0

@David Springer

Think of our mindsets like this. I am intellectually strip-mining. You are drilling. You do deeper, I do broader. But it’s arguably the same amount of coal we are bringing up. Just via different approaches.

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

December 29, 2015, 5:19 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 evanmjones

$

0

0

@evanmjone I appear to be the external quality supervisor, checking that the assumptions made are fit for purpose :-)

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

December 29, 2015, 5:19 am

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

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

$

0

0

I suggest you set up an actual experiment to demonstrate this supposed effect. It should not be difficult in a laboratory setting since it’s just a heat source, heat sink, and digital thermometer. You won’t get much traction with your mind games no matter how many times you try to explain it.

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

December 29, 2015, 5:22 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

Let’s start with a pendulum with a weight attached by a short piece of wire. Mimics the above quite well I think.

One claim is that the pendulum is unaffected. The other is that it is.

Guess which way that plays out.

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

December 29, 2015, 5:32 am

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by frankclimate

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

$

0

0

On a hot summer afternoon with clear sky find yourself a blacktop road with white lines painted along the side. Take your shoes off and walk barefoot on it. Let us know whether you prefer to walk on the white line or the dark tarmac.

---

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by frankclimate

December 29, 2015, 5:36 am

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Craig Loehle

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

$

0

0

1. The AMO is an effect of the NH ( see http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/blog/isaac-held/2015/11/21/64-disequilibrium-and-the-amoc/, when AMOC is the driver of the AMO as referred in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2918-1 ). So it seems to be not plausible to make “adjustments” to the global Temp-record. A much more sophisticated approach the the one here discussed ( unfortunateley also with globals) is is shown here: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/5/375/2014/esd-5-375-2014.pdf .
2. The AMO- adjusted global trend after 1970 can’t be lower than the SH-trend where no AMO is asserted.
3. The result is sensitive vs. the selected AMO-record. I tried with GISS and the Trenberth-record made from ERSST3b (NOT linear detrended!) and found a trend of the NH-Temps of 0.16K/decade instead of 0.24K/decade of the unadjusted GISS NH for 1970-2014. The NH-Trend (adjusted to AMO without adjusting for ENSO, solar, AOD like F/R 2011) is very stable since 1950. The SH-Trends are stable at 0.1/decade. This gives a global trend of about 0,13K/decade since 1950 (with an AMO-coefficient for NH of 0.6) which is consistent to http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/5/375/2014/esd-5-375-2014.pdf figure 3.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Craig Loehle

December 29, 2015, 5:38 am

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

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by frankclimate

$

0

0

edimbukvarevic: you and others assume that every part of the ocean follows the global temperature slavishly. This is not so. The better known PDO for example shows parts of the ocean cooling while the global temp is warming, for example.

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

December 29, 2015, 5:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Craig Loehle

$

0

0

So another irreverent view of how things look from an impartial? point of view

https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/ostrich-climate-scientist/

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH

December 29, 2015, 5:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

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

$

0

0

Indeed. Energy flows through the system are complex, quasi chaotic, and over very long timescales in most cases. Probably doesn’t help either side to draw final conclusions.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

December 29, 2015, 8:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH

$

0

0

Just spell it with a zero. J0shua.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

December 29, 2015, 9:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

$

0

0

Don’t feed the trolls. Flynn is a troll.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

December 29, 2015, 9:11 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Year in review – top science stories by aplanningengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

$

0

0

That’s the spirit, AK! If we have to put up with ignoramuses we might as well have fun doing it.

---

Comment on Year in review – top science stories by aplanningengineer

December 29, 2015, 9:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

$

0

0

Stephen, I don’t know where to begin with the question/challenge you raise. Surely you recognize all kinds of subjective data projections go into studies. There are many ways to weigh risks and different weights that can be placed on various values. Such studies are as much art as science. Perhaps in the short term when the answers work, you can have set assumptions just turn the crank and live with the results. Maybe that has been your experience. But with pressure and motives background assumptions changes and results follow. Back in the 80s a west coast utility I worked for spent a lot on geothermal – it’s never worked as hoped. Was Kemper clean coal a wise move for Missssippi? I don’t think anyone else’s studies looked much like the ones that justified it.

What do the studies that justify significant solar assume about natural gas? That the proven reserves will provide plentiful cheap natural gas? I’m afraid they don’t show that.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

December 29, 2015, 10:05 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Year in review – top science stories by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

But Nyquist!!!

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory

December 29, 2015, 10:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by David Springer

$

0

0

“The laws of physics are invariant with respect to time.”
Are we sure about that? Or is it just a convenient assumption?

There is no problem with the laws of physics.

There are problems with the understanding of the laws of physics. There are problems with models that cannot produce output that look like real data. Real data is a product of the correct laws of physics. Model output is a result of incorrect modeling of physics or a result of important physics that is left out.

Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory

December 29, 2015, 10:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

The ice core data are not sufficient without good forcing data. Where does one get that?

Solar in is measured. IR out can be calculated using temperature, and it is being measured. Solar in is equal to IR out plus Albedo out. Everything that is not IR out is Albedo out. Also, Albedo is being measured. At the top of the atmosphere, that is all that is.

Comment on NOAA fails walrus science by Willard

December 29, 2015, 10:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by popesclimatetheory

$

0

0

> [Y]ou try to transform the science issues into a personal matter between me and Kovacs.

Yet Jim’s minimized an hypothesis supported by walrus scientists “Kovacs’ speculation” and said of the main author of a report involving many “walrus science” research centers:

[H]e obviously does not know what he is talking about.

.

One way to depersonalize this would be to communicate with the NOAA and all the institutions that paid for a report in which we can read that walruses mate on ice. It’s quite obvious that walruses mate in sea. Perhaps Jim could also write a letter to the Editors of the journals that published the articles cited in the NOAA score card. It could end with “LOL,” “ROFL,” or “ROFLMAO.”

INTEGRITY ™ – LOL.