What pause?
Are you anathema to actual data?
I gave mine. Where is yours?
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by David Appell
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by David Appell
<i>This explains why the Earth has cooled in both hemispheres, globally, overall, and quite a bit, over the last 4.5 billion years.</i>
You do your cause harm when you refer to wacko arguments like this one.
↧
Comment on An alternative metric to assess global warming by David Springer
More IR down decreases the IR loss from the ocean but it increases evaporation and latent heat loss.
See if you can find an experiment showing precisely how much IR loss slows and how much evaporation increases per unit of power increase at 10 micrometer wavelength. IR at that frequency is absorbed by water within the first few micrometers of its surface which drives evaporation without changing the bulk temperature.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by lolwot
You really cannot see the warming in the data?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:12/from:1970/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1970/to:1997/trend
Just extrapolate that little green line forwards – the line that ends when you claim the pause started.
Perhaps when the red line jumps above 1998 you will suddenly realize.
But it’s not going to look good in hindsight when people ask you to point to the “pause” on a graph and you can’t even find it.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by David Appell
That is indeed what I find — using GISS data for the average global surface temperature anomaly for each hemisphere, calculated monthly since January 1880, I find the standard deviation of the northern hemisphere is 0.38 C, and for the southern hemisphere it is 0.28 C.
Data:
NH http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts+dSST.txt
SH http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/SH.Ts+dSST.txt
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by beththeserf
Whatever be the flaws
in the methodology
of the proxy data by
Neukom, Gergis, Karoly
lies concealed in archives
not for public eyes.
Hey, unlock your data,
start doing it now,
unlock your data,
let Steve Mc show you how.
http://climateaudit.org/2014/03/31/neukom-and-gergis-serve-cold-screened-spaghetti/
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Measuring temperatures in the Leftist liberal asphalt jungle to calculate a mean global average temperature is corrupted by the blue city urban heat island effect and in any event, arrives at government-approved numbers of official numerologists whose findings have zero meaning scientifically.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Wagathon
Only Al Gore knows the future… he invented it!
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by John Carpenter
“Your actions are creepy….”
“Whatever your motives, what you’ve done is immoral.”
“Your contribution is simply creepy.”
Bart, you invalidly claimed the moral high ground with these comments to miker613. You are in no position to make these judgments. You misunderstood what I said. It’s ok. Oh, and thanks for your concern over my reasoning ability… or disability as it were. That means a lot to me, you are so kind to point me in the right direction. You must sleep well at night knowing you do such good in the world. Thank you Bart.
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Steven Mosher
“Mr. Mosher, kriging across land/sea/snow and ice make no sense. So for tome where between 4 and 6 months out of the year, it can be done but should not be.
1. silly man of course it makes sense. The issue is always the accuracy.
basically you can include an indicator variable in your drift function.
2. they employ an ice mask, as do we.
3. The biggest issue with kriging in the polar regions are
A) the correlation length may be too long as the correlation length
in the arctic can have strong seasonal variations
B) inversion layers which will play havoc with your predictions.
4. The proof is in the pudding of out of sample testing and comparison
with AIRS..
“Plus the C&T also kited from UAH grid cells to manufacture Artic warming when UAH does not show it in the same region.
You may be impressed with the method and results. As an econometrician and a believer in independent results verifications, I am not. They set out to manufacture polar amplification by kriging from warmer lower latutude surface data. They cherry picked UAH to get an inconsistent with UAH result. And publicized their synthetic result as showing the pause isn’t. But It is. Defense of the indefensible is unbecoming.”
Well, the problem is you are wrong. They did validate against Bouys and if you followed my work
on AIRS you should have a good sense of what is coming in an AIRS validation
Finally, you can check against the latest long series for polar surface temps
just published ( previewed at AGU.. ) go find that on your own. Look at all the data, all the sources and then speak to me.
for all the blather about data skeptics never actually look at it
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Bernal
“Judith drags up a 3 yr old testimony from Christy – why now?”
Dude, that was so…like, two years ago.
Have your irony removed? Wot!
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by John Carpenter
Steve, Jim C is using the scientific method to conclude that CO2 has a positive yet negligible effect on temperature. You know, he formed a hypothesis, tested it, analyzed results, formed a conclusion which validated the hypothesis. Except he didn’t do the test part because he already knew the effect of CO2 on temperature cannot be directly measured. So he skipped that part. He therefore had no data to analyze, but he formed a conclusion anyway. He is certain CO2 has a positive effect which is supported by no measurements, so therefore it is negligible. That is how Jim’s scientific method works.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by John Carpenter
Oh, and Jim got a value of 0.0 with a precision of 2 significant figures.
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Generalissimo Skippy
Certain data is questionable. Stomata CO2 proxies suggest that the ice core concentrations miss variability and are too low on average. Jason and GRACE are inconsistent with ARGO heat and salinity. Surface temperatures over land are inconsistent with satellite troposphere data.
Ultimately you look for consistency, consilience and artifacts. In the case of surface temps over land the essential problem is water availability – the lack thereof over land – making the surface record however well krigged obsolete for monitoring climate.
Did no one ever show you how to evaluate data? Perhaps they just don’t cover that in philosophy school.
↧
Comment on IPCC TAR and the hockey stick by Brandon Shollenberger
Bart R, the conclusions of the Wegman Report have not been refuted, nor have MBH's conclusions "been repeatedly independently verified." If you want to "get back to" things which aren't real, that's your call. I prefer not to.
I also prefer not to rely upon other people to make my arguments. As such, I don't refer people to the Wegman Report to make arguments against MBH. I instead write detailed explanations of various problems with it. A listing of such writings can be found at the end of <a href="http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/a-list-of-manns-screw-ups/" rel="nofollow">this</a> post. If you'd like to focus on a newer generation of reconstructions, #8 and on in that list discuss Michael Mann's 2008 reconstruction.
If you think you can offer any sort of substantial defense for MBH or Mann 2008, you're welcome to respond to any of the posts therein. You're also welcome to merely wave your hands and make empty remarks, if you prefer.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by GaryM
The only way such an argument makes sense is if it is framed as “Even if your temperature reports are true, they show a pause of x years.” Ditto for arguments regarding sea level, climate sensitivity, etc.
Which is why I generally refer to the “reported” GAT when discussing the “pause.”.
↧
Comment on Spinning the climate model – observation comparison: Part II by farming simulator 2014 full
An interesting discussion is worth comment.
I think that you need to write more about this topic, it may not be
a taboo subject but generally people don’t discuss such subjects.
To the next! Best wishes!!
↧
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Jim Cripwell
Steven, you write “Measured physics says you add 3.7 Watts”
Wrong. Calculated physics says you add 3.7 Wm-2. There is no physics that shows that all of the change of radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is retained. A small rise change in lapse rate could cause it to all be radiated into space. No-one has estimated how much OHC rises for a doubting of CO2.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by Jim Cripwell
Steven, you also write “Your argument is there is no data. yet you conclude, given no data, that the effect cannot be more than negligible.”
Again, wrong. I use no such logic. I observe that no-one has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph. This can never prove anything, but it gives a strong indication that the climate sensitivity of CO2, however defined, is indistinguishable from zero.
↧
Comment on The inconvenient Southern Hemisphere by DocMartyn
Rud, according to C&W the Titanic hit an island in the Atlantic.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
