Neither. I’m looking at HadCRUT3 with an eye to describing it as simply as possible. I would be thrilled if anyone could offer me a simpler description.
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by stefanthedenier
gareth | December 5, 2012 at 2:20 am said: 'Thankyou Professor Pratt for posting this. I will attempt to provide some skeptical but I hope constructive comments''
gareth, .you and ''daily planet' are capable of providing ''skeptical comments'' as much as cane-toads can provide wool. For the 2 of you + Pratt, genuine ''skeptical comments'' are a nightmare = you can't provide one, you can only try to silence those. Now is obvious that: all 3 of you are sucking & sponging from the same suffering taxpayer .
Rubber-stamping / dignifying Vaughn's LOADED post with crap; Vaughn should have already provided washing pegs, for people's noses; before starting to read it, now you Gareth &daily planet are adding extra and string up Vaughn's witchcraft doo-do. Is that what ''peer reviewed'' means for the Warmist EXTREMIST, as the 3 of you?!?!?!
↧
Comment on Open thread weekend by Lance Wallace
Judith and denizens–
An excellent thread at Bishop Hill on uncertainty of climate models with good input from all sides–has been going from Dec 2 to now. Some interesting comments on recent papers showing rather low aerosol effects, which if confirmed would lead to climate sensitivities somewhat below the low end of the IPCC 2-4.5 C per doubling range.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
I mailed my post to Judith on December 3 and she said she’d post it that evening. Due to time pressure she wound up posting it on the morning of Dec. 4 without editing it accordingly. Less puzzled now, King of Siam?
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
Good point, one that I had the very fortunate opportunity to discuss with Pieter Tans from NOAA Boulder this afternoon when he dropped by my poster. (Perhaps I should call him Al since he and James Butler are the two al’s in my “Hofmann et al” in the poster.)
SO2 (which cools) and brown cloud pollution (which warms) are too well correlated to separate. The only question is which dominates. MRES suggests brown cloud dominates, which Pieter had no quarrel with. Had MRES gone down instead of up it would support that SO2 dominates.
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Edim
AGW was negative before 1972?
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
As Niels Bohr pointed out decades before Yogi Berra, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” Please don’t view my extrapolations as predictions, there’s a difference. As extrapolations they are perfectly fine.
Ray Pierrehumbert told me this morning at AGU that the permafrost threat was greatly overblown. I have no opinion either way, so if you disagree with Ray please take it up with him, not me.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Peter Miller
You are obviously correct in many instances, but there are many gullible politicians who have only lived their lives in the political, as opposed to the real, world. These people will believe whatever is trendy and/or what their spin doctors tell them they should believe.
Money and power are the obvious incentive for most politicians, but given the apparent chance “to save the world” as well, and in full view of the public, then that’s the icing on the cake. Then, of course, there is the subject of finding new ways to raise tax revenues.
Anyhow, the point is this: the general public is constantly being told it has “to save the world” by self-appointed elites (environmental and political) by digging deep into its own pockets Why? Because of the ‘predictions’ of highly flawed and dubious climate models, most of which have a problem in making accurate hindcasts.
Whatever your opinion of computer climate models, you have to recognise they are mostly produced by people interested only in the self-preservation of their own comfortable lifestyles. So, whatever results the paymaster wants, the paymaster gets. And the paymaster almost always wants more tax revenues, but he/she also wants you to feel good – hence “saving the world” – about paying them.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
A shame indeed. But I only attributed ocean oscillations to that effect. Are you able to account for global warming the same way?
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
About right. For an R2 of 99.98% I’d calculated seven, shall we split the difference? ;)
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
Sorry, Max, I was at AGU all day and just getting around now to answering the responses to my post, including your earlier comment. Let me know if you feel I didn’t do it justice.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by E.M.Smith
I just note the continued assertion that you can get any desired precision with enough averaging of data items… and ignoring that the effect can only work on random error and can not work on systematic error.
So, for example, the conversion from Stevenson Screens to MMTS was accompanied by the observation of a ‘cooling bias’ in the MMTS, which was ‘corrected’. Except now we find that the real error was that aging Stevenson Screens get warmer. So a slow increase (“warming”) over the life of the Stevenson Screens that is an error gets ‘locked in’ via the ‘removal of the cooling bias’ of swapping to the MMTS.
That is a SYSTEMATIC error that will never be removed by averaging. So you can never have milli-Kelvin, or IMHO, even good partial Kelvin accuracy or precision in the historical trend data. And that is only ONE such systematic error. The dramatic increase in use of Airports (that are known to be warming) as percent of data introduces another systematic error term. Aviation increased dramatically from post W.W.II to now. Aviation thermometer are to record temperatures near the runway (where the wings are, and were density altitude determines if you fly or crash…) so they want to know how hot it is over the asphalt / tarmac / concrete.
There’s more, but you get the picture. Systematic errors in equipment splices, location microclimate, instrument selection (thermometer change over time to less volatile locations during a PDO / AMO 60 year cycle).
Gives a nice 30 to 40 year ramp up. That then suddenly stops. Unless continuously ‘corrected’ with added ‘adjustments’… When long lived rural non-airport stations data are observed, it does not show this warming trend. So what you have shown in your filtered data is the signal of economic growth, aviation growth, and urbanization; along with equipment changes and ‘corrections’ that go the wrong way.
But it makes pretty graph and the ‘milli-Kelvins’ is a nice touch… that makes it clear the concept of False Precision is being soundly ignored.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
I claimed an R2 of 99.98%, which might sound like it should be convertible into a fantastic error bar. This is easily refuted by fitting the top of a gaussian to the top of a sine wave, or vice versa (depending on which one you propose to extrapolate from).
They are virtually indistinguishable, with an extraordinarily high R2! Yet they evolve in very different directions.
This makes the point that a high R2 cannot be taken as an indication of certainty. No way, Jose!
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Vaughan Pratt
Sorry, I was at AGU (same excuse as Judith, more or less).
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by WebHubTelescope
Yes, I think Jim Cripwell has ulterior motives.
Note that when he comments at Climate Dialogue, he agrees that GW is due to aCO2 but here he won’t admit to it.
He is playing to his audience, clear evidence of an argument manipulator.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by vukcevic
BBD
Science moves by specifics, not opinions. .It is the data the graphs represent that matter, not whether you or I may think they are pretty or ugly. Some dismiss unwanted information, others attach an interpretation they find suitable for the purpose.
Neither is science, nor it was Yamal tree, or many other nonsensical pronouncements often masquerading as a ‘peer review’ science.
I show visually data content for your and others attention, it is your choice what you may say, think or believe.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by mike
BBD,
Yr: “Why are you resorting to sock-puppetry/”
You know, BBD, it is curious how the crushers on this blog get all worked up by “sock-puppetry.” I mean even the alternate “handles” used by the Chief and Latimer, which everyone knows belong to them, seem to trigger spoiled-brat-temper-tantrum, up-tight, nit-noid obsessed, totally weirdo, freak-out, over-wrought objections on your part suggestive of severe mental-health issues. Like I say, BBD, curious–especially since you and your fellow crusher hive-bozos don’t have the slightest objections to, say, the use of pseudonyms.
Just a theory, here, BBD, but let me run it by you and see what you think. So, BBD, I’m, like, thinkin’ you crushers are keepin’ some sort of a file of selected deniers’ comments and the “sock-puppet” business messes up your rigid, amateurish, DISCIPLINED, top-down-iron-fist-controlled, typical-greenshirt-inflexible-set-up, file system.
And instead of just whippin’ up some modifications to your little “surveillance” system so that it cross-links “sock-puppet” monikers, you, BBD, and your crusher hive-retards respond, as your alternative of choice, by spinning yourselves up into a series of little, fussbudget-geek, whiny-dork, prig-dude snit-fits that routinely lead to a blown, control-freak gasket or two before an astonished humanity and hope that solves the problem.
You know, BBD, I can hardly wait for you and the other crushers to become our power-and-control, whip-cracker, autocrat Philosopher-Kings-and Queens so that you can plunge us all into that misery-loves company, nit-picking, fault-finding, nag-bot hive-hell, you eco-weenie, “little-man” martinets call home.
↧
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by mwgrant
Sorry about the formatting…verdammte WP. Lucia does a much better job.
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Steven Mosher
Jim,
The data is just points. That is what is observed.
Here is what is not observed for example..
1. the average
2. the trend.
Those two “things” are never observed. They are not in the data.
They are created when you decide to apply a mathematical operation TO the data. This mathematical operation is a choice. An analyst choice. It is not “In” the data. you apply a method to the data and you get an answer.
Here is some help. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?page_id=2690
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=3562
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation
“Thus far the data have been assumed to consist of the trend plus noise, with the noise at each data point being independent and identically distributed random variables and to have a normal distribution. Real data (for example climate data) may not fulfill these criteria. This is important, as it makes an enormous difference to the ease with which the statistics can be analysed so as to extract maximum information from the data series. If there are other non-linear effects that have a correlation to the independent variable (such as cyclic influences), the use of least-squares estimation of the trend is not valid. Also where the variations are significantly larger than the resulting straight line trend, the choice of start and end points can significantly change the result. That is, the result is mathematically inconsistent. Statistical inferences (tests for the presence of trend, confidence intervals for the trend, etc.) are invalid unless departures from the standard assumptions are properly accounted for, for example as follows:
Dependence: autocorrelated time series might be modeled using autoregressive moving average models.
Non-constant variance: in the simplest cases weighted least squares might be used.
Non-normal distribution for errors: in the simplest cases a generalised linear model might be applicable.”
Girma and you need to read more and comment less.
Unit root: taking first differences of the data
↧
Comment on Multidecadal climate to within a millikelvin by Mike Jonas
What a shame I’m too late to prevent your circular logic being presented at the AGU Fall Meeting. I hope someone there was able to point it out.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
