It does. It is just fixation blindness that means people don’t see that.
Ah, well. Logic continues to expose the assumptions.
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
The distribution is crap.
If you really wanted to know precisely the values of the air temperature round Oxford, you would need a thermometer about every 1 mile or so to even get close.
What we have now is ‘what we got so we have to accept it’.
That’s not science.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
“but Nyquist”
Ha, ha.
Try logic instead then. Maroon
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
“Don’t feed the trolls.”
said the troll under the bridge.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
It is strange that a few, careful, observations gets everybody in such a ‘tither’.
The facts are that, like all good discoveries, one persons work often gets adopted by other fields, often then renamed to something different for Academia pride, sometimes unknowingly, (sometimes not?)
This is true here for poor old Nyquist – Shannon. They must be rolling in their graves.
If you are sub-dividing something to get a better grasp of what is going on then you are, like it or not, invoking Nyquist or one of his many shadows.
Nyquist tells us that, when we look at capturing discrete samples (on either paper or by a machine) we are then sub-sampling that field, length, volume, mass, etc.
The observation is that the finer we sample, in either time or space, the better the resolution is.
There are also limits to what we can know.
The bit everybody quotes about Nyquist revolves around what we are taught. The high frequency stuff. Great attention is paid to this. Unfortunately that is not all he/they said.
Pop up the Academia corridors and ask a Logician, Engineer, any pragmatic scientist and ask them if what is said above is true or un-true.
Good luck.
Oh and if the maroon guy comes around, feed him some biscuits.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
I thought you meant your understanding of what was going on there for a minute.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
said the troll
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
You will be more likely to be close to what happens if you take some long period (as long as possible – I use SG if you look at my R) to try and see what will happen in the near future.
Like all such beasts, as you add new data the ends of the line move up and down for the bit outside the annual Gaussian. So in all cases it is indicative, not certain.
UAH/RSS show what ‘could’ be the appropriate portion of some ~60 year signal in the data. Of course nothing is certain. We do not have the data capture window length to say yes or no right now.
But, like it or not, the possibility is there.
P.S. I do notice that, despite making my data and methodology no-one has is any scientific way challenged them. The R is there. The data sources I used are there.
Any ‘proof’ that what I did was wrong?
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Well as you/they used the same data set, then the only observation for different results is that different methodologies have been used (somewhere in the details).
Perhaps you should seek to explain that difference better in any correction as well. Why is your methodology better, what does it reveal, etc.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
P.S. It has long been recognised in science and computing that, if you wish to claim accuracy in your results, then you need at least one more decimal place to ensure rounding errors, truncations, etc. don’t play too big a part in what you see. This even goes for inside all your equations.
So if you are claiming 0.1 degree accuracy, then you need 0,01 data input (or a claim that everything is so smooth and absolutely equally distribute either side of the chop points so as to make it unnecessary).
Which do you claim?
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
RichardLH,
Witless Warmists don’t need no stinkin’ facts! Toy models and amateur computer programs will do.
Nyquist-Shannon, and the rest? What would they know? Are they professional climatologists? Can they measure a thousand old air temperature with a piece of wood?
Maybe you don’t realise that Michael Mann would have liked a Nobel Prize, but didn’t actually do anything deserving enough to get one!
Oh well, everyone knows you can predict the future by adjusting the past. I’ve just cast the runes, measured and adjusted them to within 0.01 mm, and can now confidently predict the Sun will rise, the weather, (and hence the climate), will continue to change, and there’s a 50% chance of rain tomorrow.
The BOM have just issued a forecast confirming there’s a 50% chance of rain tomorrow, so my rune measurements must be correct. As you might say, maroons!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Mike: I do not make wild claims (or seek to denigrate others). These are simple, logical, factual observations.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by opluso
If you want to subtract a trendless AMO cycle in order to leave the forced component then how much does it really matter which way you produce the trendless cycle?
The differenced ZH version above requires an additional step to remove the forcing trend while the standard AMO Index used by CL already displays no trend. However, the T&S and CL versions look quite similar to me.
Is this distinctioning without a differencing?
In any event, CL stated his goal is “to open this line of enquiry to reducing the uncertainty due to internal variability”? Seems that he was quite successful in that regard.
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by Mike Flynn
RichardLH,
An example of climatological metrological (Warmists obviously get metrology and meteorology confused) superiority is demonstrated in satellite altimetry. Where physical constraints might indicate an accuracy, based on frequency, surface scan speed, wave section, ionospheric and atmospheric perturbations etc., of say 1.2 m, by dint of furious averaging and unrealistic assumptions, climatologists claim an accuracy to within 0.02 m, or 20 mm.
However, by another prestidigitorial piece of legerdemain, nonsensical 20 mm precision is magically transformed into 0.01 mm accuracy for MSL. Half a thousandth of an inch! Not bad, eh?
Climatologists are not restrained by normal physics. They just make it up as they go along. Ah, would that normal science was so easy!
Cheers.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Consider carefully http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/rms/.
Now irrevocably polluted by UHI (have you looked at where it is?).
In our mind lets add some desirable extra sampling points.
We need fairly big open spaces to put them in so
1. Port Meadow. Captures quite well the valley characteristics that do influence local temps.
2. University Parks. Captures the ‘hill’ that Oxford sits on.
3. Sherwell Valley. To get the other major river influence in Oxford
4. Somewhere around Headingly, say South Park.
5. Wytham Hill. To capture the other hill to the West of Oxford.
need I go on?
And they all show the same figure to 0.1 degrees? Give me a break
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Situational Awareness training will allow a more balanced view of what is going on, true.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Craig: I am sorry, I missed your response to this as I got distracted elsewhere on this thread.
So you know the sources you used (as anomalies). You know the reference cycle that was subtracted to get to their Anomalies (its somewhere in their publications).
Without being able to compare their reference cycles then any Anomaly to Anomaly calculation leaves that question unanswered (and un-thought?).
↧
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
It is claimed that the two are ‘similar’. However there appears to be no attempt to predict what effects, if any, the known 60 year cycle will cause.
It is a pragmatic observation that UAH/RSS are demonstrating a sub-sampled view of just that 60 year wave. Too short to tell right now. But that observation stands none the less.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
Eli: Hello again. Just as the estimated temperature field relies heavily on Nyquist but that is not acknowledged.
↧
Comment on Global Temperature Trends After Detrending with the AMO by RichardLH
David: The observation that a cooling hot ball of rock will form a skin as things progress to entropy is hardly new.
↧
