Comment on Open thread by petermartin2001

December 6, 2013, 1:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt

I must admit that I have suffered from climate argument fatigue recently and found the need to look for a new angle. So far, the most controversy I’ve managed to generate was in connection with a posting titled “Can commercial banks create money out of thin air?”

I don’t think they can, but after the discussion I can see better why many people think they do. Most of what we think of as money isn’t really money as most people would understand it. Its not money that is issued by governments. Its essentially an IOU generated by a bank.

If you fancy contributing your tuppence worth, see:

“http://petermartin2001.wordpress.com/2013/11/24/can-commercial-banks-create-money-out-of-thin-air/

↧

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

December 6, 2013, 1:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by lolwot

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by petermartin2001

Vaughan; So what you are saying is that regardless of the exact formula used to derive the underlying curve that is used, the best sequence for an monthly integer based F3 filter for 12 months is 8, 10 and 12 and that it produces almost exactly the same output as a more complex Gaussian or other higher order filter?

↧

Comment on Open thread by lolwot

December 6, 2013, 1:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

“No statistically significant warming in last 15 years”

You claimed stasis.

Is there statistically significant stasis? No. Ie your claim that there has definitely been stasis in the last 15 years was wrong.

↧

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

December 6, 2013, 1:23 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by lolwot

I would love to see a worked out algorithm (with monthly weightings if possible) for a low pass filter that works on a monthly sampled input and with a 12 month cut off point in frequency terms. One that is simple to implement but does not have the supposed ‘bad;’ characteristics that an F3 one does.

This is precisely what is required for most climate data.

The difficulty is that we have an already integer sampled (and poorly so as per Greg’s point) temperature sequence with only 12 samples to the required cut off point.

Does kinda make it challenging.

↧

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

December 6, 2013, 1:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Greg

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

So here’s a challenge to all who wish. Take a temperature series at monthly resolution and with a fairly short history. I would suggest the UAH Global column from Dr Spencer site. http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt

Plot the series and a 12 month low pass filtered sequence of the same on a single graph. Show your workings. Demonstrate the relative advantage of your preferred methodology over a simple F3 with 8, 10 and 12 as the parameters.

Only if you wish :-)

↧

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Greg

December 6, 2013, 1:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Change, Extreme Weather Linked(?) at Last by Ramadan

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by RichardLH

Good example. Look at the latest graph on Dr. Spencer’s site
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Now look at the years 2011,2012 and note now the peaks in the data correspond to troughs in his 13mo running mean. The same effect as I showed in the article using SSN.

I’ve provided the method as well scripts to implement other filters. Why don’t _you_ try your own test?

↧

Comment on Climate Change, Extreme Weather Linked(?) at Last by Ramadan

December 6, 2013, 2:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Greg

Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my apple ipad
and tested to see if it can survive a forty foot drop,
just so she can be a youtube sensation. My apple ipad is now destroyed
and she has 83 views. I know this is completely off topic but I had
to share it with someone!

↧

Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä

December 6, 2013, 3:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Change, Extreme Weather Linked(?) at Last by Ramadan

Details of the frequency space response may be important, when the data being filtered contains periodic signals. There are some very strong and several much weaker periodic signals in the Earth system (24 hours, year, lunar periods, Jupiter period, Milankovic cycles, etc.

In almost all cases it’s important to take the diurnal and annual periods into account implicitly or explicitly, but the other periods are seldom significant. Therefore a rather crude F3 filter and a Gaussian filter approximated by the F3 filter give in very many cases almost identical results.

That’s true even when the data contains a quasiperiodic signal, whose period varies significantly like the solar 11-year (or 22-year) cycle as an example.

↧

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

December 7, 2013, 1:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

≪ Previous: Comment on Data corruption by running mean ‘smoothers’ by Pekka Pirilä

So you don’t see a difference between global average temperature and global temperature change?

↧

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

December 7, 2013, 1:24 am

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

It is hypothesized that this bias is driven by the desire to more accurately capture the observed recent acceleration of warming in the Arctic and corresponding decline in Arctic sea ice

How much of the decline in sea ice is because of the warming, and how much of the observed warming is because of the decline in sea ice?

↧

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

December 7, 2013, 1:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

Vaughan Pratt | December 6, 2013 at 2:45 am |

An explanation that I imagine Max would prefer is that he’s right. After carefully rereading this thread I realized that on Dec. 2 at 1:32 am Max did indeed allow 10% as the rate of per capita emissions over the past four decades. 18 hours later I was still falsely claiming he was ignoring the possibility that they could increase at all.

Relative to the actual increase however, 10% over four decades is pretty close to no increase at all. I would apply for a moral victory if I thought that was worth anything on CE, but I have to be realistic.

I think you owe Max an apology, Vaughn. The global per capita rate of CO2 emission went up barely 5% from 1980 to 2010 based on figures from British Petroleum.

http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-per-capita-energy-consumption-and-co2-emissions.png

Where did you get data that indicates otherwise?

BP data appears corroborated by other sources for global per capita energy consumption.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2012/03/per-capita-energy-consumption-countries-82580.php

Moreover, even that small rate of growth in per capita CO2 emission is projected to not grow larger through at least 2035.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:World_per_capita_energy_consumption_projection.png

Vaughn Pratt doesn’t seem capable of admitting mistakes. Perhaps this might be an exception or he’ll amaze us all with contrary data to support his position. Stranger things have happened I suppose.

↧

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by Beth Cooper

December 7, 2013, 1:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

phatboy@ 3.51am says: ‘If you’re human you’re biased.’
True, there’s no such thing as the innocent eye, but that’s
how we learn, by making guesses about ‘what’s out there,
tentative hypotheses we ask naychure. We may transcend
our subjectivity, though, if we’re willing ter subject our guess-
theories ter corroboration or refutation through tests, our own,
or corroboration and refutation of a public public naychure.

↧

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

December 7, 2013, 2:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

≪ Previous: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by Beth Cooper

Actually I meant to say that global CO2 emission per capita is not projected to grow at all through 2035. If the actuarial weenies are right global population stabilizes at 9bn circa 2050 so given just conservation, rising price of fossil fuel, modest build-out of known renewable energy sources, we should expect global CO2 emission to stabilize mid-century without any draconian efforts to reduce it. That means anthropogenic warming halts right about the point where even the bandwagon CAGW boffins admit the warming is still a net positive by warming the frozen north in the winter extending growing seasons, fertilizing the atmosphere, and reducing fresh water requirements per unit of plant growth.

What’s not to like except for the fact that there isn’t enough fossil fuel to sustain the consumption rate more than 100 years or so with current economically recoverable reserves… which is the only compelling reason to pursue alternatives. But it’s a really good reason in and of itself!

↧

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

December 7, 2013, 2:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by wayne

≪ Previous: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

…but some of us like to pretend that we’re not.
Or we don’t believe that we are, based upon the fact that lots of others agree with us – never imagining that those lots of others are biased in the same direction as we are.

↧

Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by wayne

December 7, 2013, 2:16 am

≫ Next: Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by phatboy

I’m now a bit confused.

So which is first, the chicken or the egg? Models upon which papers are written and seem to rely on adjustments, or the adjustments based on papers that rely on models? Seems both could suffer from this bias, possibly recursively?

↧

Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by David Springer

December 7, 2013, 2:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by Beth Cooper

≪ Previous: Comment on Selection bias in climate model simulations by wayne

Vaughan Pratt | December 6, 2013 at 1:57 am |

“Have you ever considered why CO2 plummeted from 6000 ppm to 180-280 ppm over a period of a few hundred million years?”

Of course I have. It’s because we’re in a frickin’ ice age. Even the interglacial is cold compared to the majority of the earth’s history where there have been no polar ice caps. There’s the remains of temperate forest underneath the Antarctic ice. How does that square with your voracious plant diatribe? Plants that grow voraciously die and decay just as much more rapidly too. Fercrisakes Vaughn start thinking a little harder about this stuff. You glom onto the first conclusion that seems to make sense to you then you’re immovable.

Max, you need to dig a little deeper. Carbon storage in soil quickly reaches equilibrium. Topsoil doesn’t go down forever. Duh. Granted in some places it’s been badly depleted by agriculture but in the big picture human agriculture takes up only a tiny fraction of the earth’s surface. The Big Kahuna (Vaughn pay attention too) as far as carbon reservoirs is the global ocean. Terrestrial storage is a pittance in comparison. And the reason why atmospheric CO2 is so low today is because the ocean is freaking cold (ice age, duh) and can dissolve a lot more CO2. Are you boys dumbasses or what? Good grief.

↧