Clik here to view.
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart
You are ignoring the fact that short term trends change quite rapidly. Using HadCrut3, for example, the 10 year trends have the following sequence. 0.29 0.25 0.28 0.35 0.33 0.29 0.24 0.24 0.09 0.04...
View ArticleComment on Consensus or not (?) by Edwin Wigmore
The reason why stakes have to be driven regularly through the heart of AGW is because it is “zombie” science. By that I mean, like a zombie, it moves, makes noises and acts alive, when really it died...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Latimer Alder
@chris ho-stuart The problem with your reliance on ‘the physics’, is that the pesky climate doesn’t seem to be behaving the way your theory tells us it should. And I’m disappointed to see that your...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chief Hydrologist
I propose a 100 years – after all we want a really long term trend that encompasses all of the variabilities – see Girma for the details – I really can’t be bothered.
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker
Chris Thanks for your response. I think you have pinpointed where our basic disagreement lies. You cite “physics” (rather than “physical observations”) as the basis for the postulations leading to the...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Paul S
<i>While a 30-year trend line will yield a similar value (0.16), shorter or longer time frame do not. (The 15-year trend is essentially 0, the 60-year trend is 0.11, and the 90- and 120-year...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy
Part of caption of Fig 1 FAQ 3.1 AR4 WG1: “Results from climate models driven by estimated radiative forcings for the 20th century (Chapter 9) suggest that there was little change prior to about 1915,...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by David Bailey
In all these discussions, we tend to forget that Anthony Watts has presented considerable evidence that global temperatures are: 1) Inaccurate – many measurements just don’t have 0.1C precision. 2)...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul Matthews
The solar person on AR5 is Blanca Mendoza, one of the lead authors of chapter 8, with Joanna Haigh as a contributing author. The leaked ZOD devotes just two and a half pages to the topic (there’s...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by Paul S
One thing which isn’t often discussed is the annual cycle in incoming solar radiation. The typically quoted values of 1360 or 1365 W/m^2 represent the amount received at a hypothetical Earth which is...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Steve Milesworthy
Latimer, Such model runs have already been done and are reported in the IPCC report. But they don’t help with short term variability because the natural variability of even two identical planets would...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by dennis adams
This non-scientist had the same reaction to the same graph and correlation as you did. It must be my lying eyes.
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by maksimovich
First Wang 2005 is incorrect in so far as the minima of 22/23 is the same as 23/24.The degradation of the PMO6V radiometer has been well identified eg Frolich, Svaalgard,discussions and more recently...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Vaughan Pratt
You have but to open your eyes to see. Chief, I closed my eyes and right away I could see what you meant. The first epigram here bears on this, as does Circa Survive here:
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by Jim Cripwell
I remembered. Not stricly what you are looking for, but try http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3836-new-paper-on-cosmic-rays-and-diurnal-temperature-change.html This is the effect on diurnal...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Dikran marsupial
DanH the reason that we are still using the AR4 models is that organising a consistent set of scenarios and getting a large number of modelling groups to coordinate to produce the multi-model ensmeble...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat
Joshua: A question for “skeptics.” I didn’t see a question. You seem to want skeptics to prove that something is correct, whereas we mostly point out limitations in the science: showing that the...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma
Please bookmark this page (http://bit.ly/zA0a2j) so that we could compare IPCC’s projection with observation in the coming years. This the most easily verifiable graph IPCC ever gave regarding the...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by capt. dallas
Richard Betts asked, “Can anyone point to any evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that the effect of galactic cosmic rays is large enough to influence global concentrations of cloud condensation...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by MattStat
Joshua: I assumed it was because I wasn’t sophisticated nor intelligent enough to understand that the answer to my question was obvious. Not quite. It’s because, whatever your actual sophistication and...
View Article