I wonder if Sandusky would sue someone who called him “The Michael Mann of the locker room”. I know I would.
Comment on Steyn et al. versus Mann by David Springer
↧
↧
Comment on Steyn et al. versus Mann by David Springer
Sure, Penn State can investigate and exonerate Michael Mann in the same sense that the National Review Online can investigate and exonerate Steyn. Each carries the same amount of weight which is essentially none.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2
RLH, given the limited time frame of the data, the trend should be higher if you krige the poles. The poles over/under shoot the “global” mean by quite a bit and the ~1880-1900 start was a severe low point. You might notice that BEST is quite a bit different around 1880 due to the undershoot in the NH. BEST just shows that there is considerably more variability than assumed in the other data sets.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by David Springer
@dohbro
Yeah, I noticed the same thing. It happens in a number of places. The odds against temperature following sovereign borders like that is astronomically high (like change in OHC quoted in Joules).
That Mosher just blows it off without acknowledging it’s an artifact of some sort is revealing of his inexperience, his overconfidence, his lack of honesty, or some combination of all three. Basically he doesn’t have the chops for this, he’s working beyond his pay grade, and is way out of his league.
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by vukcevic
For attention of TonyB
Hi Tony
I hope all is well, busy with work on your book?
As suggested last summer, this CET winter indeed ended at 6.1C, well above (by 1.4C) the previous 20 year average of 4.7C
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-dMm.htm
and 2.3C above the 2013 winter (3.8C).
I wonder how does that compare with the MetOffice’s prediction from the last summer?
↧
↧
Comment on Steyn et al. versus Mann by Michael
“(And fraud by Mann was conclusively established long ago in Climategate btw…” – Katisha
Then why all the new posts from The Grand Quibbler.
It’s all cut and dried, Steyn’s got nuthin to worry about.
Looks like another ‘skeptic’ who hasn’t read the judgement on the motion to dismiss.
This is only going to get funnier.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
CD:
BEST relies on less and less thermometers as it goes back in time. Therefore its variability increase. This is not a good thing. It is based on less and less evidence.
There are only 16 thermometers with longer than 200 years of data, and only 55 with longer than 150 years of data. Not a good position at all.
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by blueice2hotsea
I woke up in the middle of the night wishing I could delete my stupid comment. A 0.5% increase in TSI would only be half necessary to reduce an ECS of 2.9 to 1.9 (HadCrut4 1878-2006).
I conflated the 11 yr. solar cycle with a 100 yr cycle low frequency rise in average TSI. And did my back-of-envelope calculations w/o an envelope.
Apologies.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
OK Steve. So you believe that your methodology is so good that is will stand a test when compared to all the others.
So a simple test then.
Reproduce as a gridded the area that HadCET data cells cover.
This is a derived data set of well renowned value. It covers in length all of your data series and therefore can act as a long term comparator.
A sub-set of your data that is relevant can therefore be compared for trend, variability and values over the whole time that the series overlap.
As it is only pulling a few pixels out of the movies you have made it should not be a great challenge.
I offer you those same grids cells as a time series for you to compare to
↧
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
Mi Cro: I understand the difference between comparing individual stations and extending them to cover an area and what the problems in doing so are.
I was trying to create an independent test that can verify the accuracy of Steve’s claims.
↧
Comment on Week in review by lolwot
-Major asteroid/comet impact
We know the % chance of this happening, and it’s very low.
-Major igneous event
Same
-Severe glaciation
Too slow, won’t happen in just 300 years.
“PETM, beloved by alarmists, was very minor in this respect”
Current changes in ocean acidification and CO2 level are much faster than the PETM. Unprecedented I should say.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
WHT: So if the data disagrees with your model – the data must be wrong!
Back to the design stage with your model I suggest. Do you need a copy?
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c274/richardlinsleyhood/HeathRobinsonPotatoPeeler_zps5197e1e9.png
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by RichardLH
“There is only a prediction of what you would see had you been observing”
I am sure there is an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ quote that would be appropriate for that statement.
↧
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by RichardLH
Fan: You are mistaken. I never said that – on this thread or anywhere else.
↧
Comment on NAS/RS Report on Climate Change: Evidence and Causes by RichardLH
Fan: Just in case you cannot read it was said by bernie1815.
Looks like you need to take a LOT more care in your thinking and comments.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by lolwot
“What I shows is that the CET has done this sort of thing before. A sharp rise and fall. It is not unusual.”
Never before has it risen to 10C. That’s not just unusual, it’s unique.
The longterm trend is up. Most likely due to CO2.
↧
Comment on Berkeley Earth Global by lolwot
If the model gets 99% of the data bang on but 1% is out, then yes that’s a very plausible explanation.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
Yes, which is why we now have the know-how to build reactors which can’t fail like Fukushima and Chernobyl.
↧
Comment on Week in review by phatboy
From the link:
The study defined extreme heat as daily temperatures in the top 10 percent for a given area.
That would class “extreme heat” as anything much above zero in many parts of the world.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
I think those Irish guys are pulling your collective legs. It is crankery at its finest. Who is it that is falling for this? Name names.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
