BEST is just land. A fairer comparison is with CRUTEM. Yes, the land is warming faster, even warming during the pause. This has been a slow realization for skeptics but they are now getting there.
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Faustino
And “Blonde.” I can’t remember if that young lady (my Facebook symbol) has made it onto CE before.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RichardLH
“BEST is just land.”
If the two data sets were from a different plant or we were not talking about trends over time you might have a point.
Assuming that land and ocean are not walled off from another it is difficult to see how one can have a trend (long term) that differs from the other.
↧
Comment on Week in review by RichardLH
Jim D:
You want land only – it doesn’t alter the picture (as you would know if you did you had looked)
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by mwgrant
WHUT
“”mwgrant, you are showing the absolute value of the temperature error with those curves. The error could go + or -. I think you are doing a lot of fancy footwork that doesn’t impress those of us that understand random walks which have a reversion to the mean property.
“And of course it impresses Cappy the Dick, because his goal is to achieve the ultimate word salad.”
Either you have landed at a bad link or can not read a plot or totally misunderstand some basics of semi-variograms–like how they are defined and calculated. While related to correlation functions are not the same. HTH.
BTW take the tone elsewhere, it does not serve you well.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by RichardLH
Jim D:
Just so you are clear – aligned version of the above
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by mwgrant
6:45 AM unavoidably out for several hours…
↧
Comment on Steyn et al. versus Mann by R. Gresty
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Cowtan and Way were trying the much more difficult problem of getting Arctic Ocean temperatures without surface measurements. I think for land areas we have the in situ instruments (known as thermometers), so why use anything else, let alone trust it more?
↧
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by Jim Cripwell
+100
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
my oh my, look at the demands.
MNFTIU
http://contextearth.com/2014/02/21/soim-and-the-paul-trap/
Max says “the models didn’t see it coming”. Well, models are inanimate objects and don’t see anything.
But if you want to talk about predictions, since 1979, climate scientists have predicted an ECS of 3C for doubling of CO2, and all observed data is still showing this. One can plot defluctuated temperature against CO2 since 1880 and see this:
http://imageshack.com/a/img823/7237/wif.gif
↧
Comment on Week in review by RichardLH
Jim D:
You do understand the problems with spacial under sampling and the potential errors it produces are don’t you?
Also that (min + max) / 2 is only a gross approximation at best for a 24 hour period.
Why would an wide area sampling instrument be worse that those? Given that balloon and other data seem to support their figures?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Paul S
Trade winds are slower due to global warming Vecchi
Trade winds are faster due to global warming England
now tell me again slowly these are the same?????
Quote where England et al. say the observed recent trade wind trend has been caused by global warming.
Yes to the first part, no to the second part.
It’s not clear what this is supposed to mean, so I’ll make a suggestion which you can confirm or clarify: you think Mosher believes temperature changes over the past 10-15 years can be entirely explained by CO2 and volcanoes.
↧
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by Jim D
“2. How do scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities?
Scientists know that recent climate change is largely caused by human activities from an understanding of basic physics, comparing observations with models, and fingerprinting the detailed patterns of climate change caused by different human and natural influences. ”
Fingerprinting is an area the “skeptics” need to learn more about. The surface warming and stratospheric cooling patterns are consistent with expected CO2 effects, and not consistent with either solar or ocean circulation changes. Held in the APS meeting also alluded to the fact that the warming pattern in the sub-polar latitudes is not the place you would expect ocean-produced warming to be. It is just the wrong pattern for that, and actually opposite.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by mwgrant
Faustino;
Nicely written. The real ballgame.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
The ocean is more undersampled than the land, and that is where the pause is concentrated. It is very easy to fill land gaps in because the station correlation distances show that interpolation is going to be very good. You have to assume cooling areas are hiding between the surface stations in a systematic way, and that is just wishful thinking. There is no reason to believe that the sampling produces a bias in either direction, and they can, and do, easily test the sampling errors by subsampling, which indicates that there are more than enough stations to tie down warming rates.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Paul S
<I>Quote where England et al. say the observed recent trade wind trend has been caused by global warming.</I>
I've realised I'm allowing you to get away with subtly changing the subject here, so don't waste your time searching for such a quote. The cause of the trade wind trend is not relevant to the effect, and it's only the effect which matters for explaining recent surface temperature trends, the entire focus of the discussion. The only thing which matters with regard consistency between Vecchi 2006 and England 2014 is that the observed trends in equivalent variables <b>during the period of overlap</b> are about the same, which they are.
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
WHT: And yet, somehow, the land temperatures trends are exceeding the water? Over 34 years worth of time? Please.
The facts are that the thermometer data is trending higher that the satellite over the whole of that period. So unless they are on different planets one or the together must be wrong.
You really do need to go away and think more carefully before you speak/write.
↧
Comment on Week in review by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)
” RichardLH | February 28, 2014 at 6:38 am |
Also that (min + max) / 2 is only a gross approximation at best for a 24 hour period.”
Where do these people come from? Who is paying them?
It’s the historical data we have. It’s your problem to show that the DC value of an AC waveform is not the average of the modelled sinusoid.
Do you understand that it is your problem to show why (min+max)/2 is not good enough? That you have to give examples of how and where it doesn’t work and that the bias is systematically in one direction? There are plenty of places where you can get detailed high-reolution hourly and subhourly data and do the averaging yourself.
Knock yourself out,
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by Fernando Leanme
This Report on Climate change is flawed because it forecasts a temperature increase derived from the RCP8.5 scenario, which the propaganda machine built on an IPCC report foundation insists on calling the “business-as-usual case”. This case isn´t business as usual, the scenario isn´t coherent, there is little “science” to back it up.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
