Comment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Fred Moolten
Your comment is #663 at the <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-bore-hole/comment-page-14/#comments" rel="nofollow">Bore Hole</a>. I suspect the reason it's...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by timg56
I have a question. If the range of the error bar is 0.8 and the prediction is for 0.2, what good is the predictive quality of the model?
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker
Chris, It is difficult for me to tell whether you are simply misinformed or are purposely fabricating a story in defense of Hansen’s failed forecast. The Hansen 1988 forecast to which I am referring...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Rob Starkey
Fred- I suppose it would take a long nonsense explanation of why it makes sense to average the results of models of unknown quality of have faith in believing models that have not on not been shown to...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by Markus Fitzhenry.
Anteros, Does Richard mean, if the information is not in the peer reviewed material submitted, the scientific method of the IPCC is rigorous enough to deal with partial arguments? Henrik Svensmark...
View ArticleComment on Slaying a greenhouse dragon by Joel Shore
Doug Cotton says: The guts of what Johnson actually proves computationally (though I doubt she would follow the mathematics) is that spontaneous radiation coming from the atmosphere is not converted to...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker
Rob and Fred I suspect (unlike Fred) that the real reason your question was censored out by Gavin is that it raised embarrassing questions, which he was unable to either answer or brush aside (my...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma
Chris Ho-Stuart FAR too short a time to look for a long period oscillation like that — ESPECIALLY in the absence of any physical theory that would explain such a thing or give a prior expectation of...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by David Wojick
When the solar page count equals the CO2 page count we will be halfway home. Objective discussion will begin.
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by manacker
Chris <em>"Statistical test for significance?"</em> Huh? What kind of double-talk is that? Girma is showing you <em>actual physical observations</em> (warts and all) of the...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Jim Cripwell
Max you write “The old “GIGO” rule still applies.” Sarc on. Hasn’t anyone told you that the proponents of CAGW have redefined GIGO. It now means Garbage in, Gospel out. Sarc off.
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by Peter Davies
This topic and the comments are most interesting and indicative of way too much focus being placed on anthropic CO2 and way too much neglect of solar and other influences in climate research over the...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by J. Seifert
This is really true….. especially studying the Earth’s orbit, which the IPCC is seeking to suppress ……. by collution of AGW-activists……by declaring there were no orbital forcing on a centennial...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart
Girma, Knight et al do it right. They DO look over a much longer time; look at figure 2 of the paper. That’s what needs to be done if you are testing ideas about effects with a long period. Just...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Jim Cripwell
Chris, you write “You test that physical theory against the data. That’s how science works.” Yes and no. We have not got that far yet. All we have, and all Girma shows, is ALL the data plotted on one...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by DocMartyn
There appear to be a number of processes that have 11, 22 or 33 episodity; all solar or harmonics of solar cycles. One would think the cause and effect would be easy to spot; but so far not really the...
View ArticleComment on Consensus or not (?) by stefanthedenier
@ Vaughan Pratt, comparing ”climatologists” with the honest section of the scientific community is same as comparing the cleanliness of eyes with the cleanliness of as-holes… It is a gross insult, to...
View ArticleComment on Solar discussion thread II by capt. dallas
poker guy, I think he will be rethinking, but if it is greater than 0.25 C, 1 C would take a looong time. There is only 1 Wm-2 change at the TOA with only about 0.7Wm-2 making it through, which would...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Girma
For example. Girma shows HadCrut3 from 1850 to 2011 inclusive. I calculate the trend to be 0.45 C/century. I don’t think Girma is doing any calculations at all. His 0.6 per century is way off what his...
View ArticleComment on Trends, change points & hypotheses by Chris Ho-Stuart
Manaker says: It is difficult for me to tell whether you are simply misinformed or are purposely fabricating a story in defense of Hansen’s failed forecast. I’m taking available data, and doing my own...
View Article