So the NAS committee on abrupt climate change – consisting of a who’s who of climate science – is illogical in their core definition.
Just phucking incredible Randy.
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Rob Ellison
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope
That pencil is mighty heavy, ain’t it Springer?
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
Tony the link to original Portland-Troutdale Airport report typed in 1950 was given several times as well as the link to the BEST data. I spot checked one month of the year at random, February, and found it cooled by 0.7F between the observer’s typed report in 1950 and BEST’s manipulation at the present time.
There’s only one Portland-Troutdale airport and one report submitted from it. Mosher simply doesn’t know what specifically happens to the data. That’s what happens when you build a big ugly pile of spaghetti code it becomes more and more difficult to untangle and make sense of what’s going on as time goes on. It’s a classic phenomenon. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti_code
Search for ‘Portland’ in this thread and you’ll find the links.
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Matthew R Marler
Marcia Wyatt, good answer. What’s the best reference, other than section 4 of Wyatt and Curry, for these narrations. I hope you are not bothered by the word “narrations”. Leroux’s book “The dynamic analysis of weather and climate” has a bunch of them, and I find the narrations to be informative.
thank you,
and thanks to Brandon Shollenberger for directing me here.
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Matthew R Marler
Brandon Shollenberger: I don’t know of any case where someone calculated principal components over a segment instead of the entire period.
I agree that was a serious liability in his approach, and much commented upon!. I still do not think it appropriate to claim that Mann invented the approach. Maybe “invent” is more flexible than I am thinking.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
The 1950 scanned report is for Portland-Troutdale. Don’t make up mistruths.
The problem is that your system is a big steaming heap of spaghetti code and the 1950 Troutdale data is one strand of it and you can’t phucking follow one strand because of the mess you made. Amateur.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by WebHubTelescope
The UAH record shows a greater slope than surface records do.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
No it’s just a few grams. Thanks for asking!
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
I think Schwollenbooger and Mosher are both dikheds so I’m an unbiased observer when I say Schwollenburger mopped up the floor with Mosher.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by David Springer
Steven Mosher | July 10, 2014 at 6:36 pm |
Sadly its not a simple question. If you think it is, then you dont know what you are talking about.
but knock yourself out. you are looking at one datasource. hourly at that.
———————————————————
Portland-Troutdale was not hourly in 1950. The report has daily min/max entries which are summed and a monthly average computed by the observer in the monthly report.
So you didn’t even bother looking at the original scanned report you just made crap up. Some might call that a lye. Bald faced.
The question is simple. Finding the answer is hideously complex. And that’s exactly why I asked the question. Any reasonable person will assume you should be able to say quickly and easily why a data input from February 1950 Portland-Troutdale airport monthly report is cooled by 0.7F where BEST shows “raw” data.
The nut is that the data is far from raw and you don’t phucking know what happened to it between the observation and the output of your spaghetti monster.
ROFLMAO
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Matthew R Marler
John S.<i>Without it, Wyatt’s handwaving conjectures are simply an exercise in numerology. </i>
Accurate descriptions of phenomena, and accurate descriptions of their quantitative relationships to other phenomena, can precede understanding by decades, and even centuries. Wyatt has provided accurate characterizations, that may in fact guide the research that will lead to the dynamical understanding that you seek.
↧
Comment on IPCC and treatment of uncertainties by Michael Larkin
So...far left fundamentalists always win, eh?
Observation: Your post contains *zero* mathematics, *zero* theory, *zero* observations, and *zero* history … and so it is nugatory.
[your "observations" and "history" are subjective wish-fulfilment].
↧
Comment on IPCC and treatment of uncertainties by harkin
Obama promised the clueless masses that health insurance would be reduced $2,400/yr per family, that if you liked your plan you could keep it, and if you liked your doctor you could keep him/her…….
all lies but he still won!
Now he’s saying the southern border integrity is stronger than ever……
Change You Can Believe In!
↧
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Rob Ellison
The method was based on Multichannel Singular Spectrum Analysis. That is – spectral decomposition of multiple time series.
It would to be the appropriate technique for mapping time series.
e.g. http://web.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd/ssa/guide/mssa/mssatheory.html
I am certainly not across the details – but handwaving about vague assertions needs to address the method and not substitute wet dreams about impossible math.
↧
Comment on Disentangling forced from intrinsic climate variability by Rob Ellison
It would seem to be….
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Brandon Shollenberger
Hey guys. I found WebHubTelescope's behavior here so funny I wrote a <a href="http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/the-stupidity-it-burns/" rel="nofollow">post</a> about it. It explains what stupid mistake he made. For those of you who don't want to read it, here's a short version.
I compared GISS and BEST gridded data for the area I live in. GISS uses 2º x 2º grids while BEST uses 1º x 1º grids. My original post pointed out that means they're not completely comparable (the GISS gridcell I used covers a larger area than the BEST gridcell I used). WebHubTelescope somehow ignored this, and instead of looking at gridded data, he looked at data for a single city (Springfield, Illinois).
The GISS gridcell I used covers something like twenty cities and who knows how many towns. It covers something like a quarter of the state. Of course WebHubTelescope found he doesn't get the same results when he uses a single city's measurements!
I'll put it more simply. WebHubTelescope repeatedly insulted me, suggesting I'm incompetent (and maybe dishonest) because if you use a single city's data instead of data for 1/4th of the state of Illinois, you get different results.
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Brandon Shollenberger
Matthew R Marler, I addressed WebHubTelescope’s comments in response to my post just above. I think just about everyone can agree he was way off the rails. As for your suggestion I:
have accurately presented another example of why lots of people do not trust the results of the adjustments
I should point out this particular problem is rather humorous. BEST smears information around on the spatial dimensions quite a bit. Part of how it manages to do that is its empirical breakpoint algorithm.
By cutting up records when they disagree too much with regional trends, BEST forces its data to be more homogenous over larger areas. It’s trivially easy to see the “empirical breakpoints” often have no justification external to their scalpeling. That means they’re forcing their data to be more homogenous over larger areas by introduces artifical breakpoints. In other words, they’re massively overfitting their data.
Unless I’m missing something, the oft-touted scalpel method BEST uses has been implemented in a way that makes their results worse. I think that’s hilarious.
↧
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by popesclimatetheory
I would like a link to the Sky Dragon Thread.
Is there an index of all the Threads?
↧
Comment on IPCC and treatment of uncertainties by ordvic
This is off subject, but I heard this on the radio on the way to the store:
JPL: El Nino the weak getting weaker
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/elninopdo/elnino/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=230
↧
Comment on Understanding adjustments to temperature data by Don Monfort
Webby has left the building. I hope he comes back. We will pretend that nothing has happened, webby. We promise.
↧
