|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 13:20:03 GMT
Japanese Meteorological Agency reports 2009 is probably going to end up the 3rd warmest year on record ( ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/news/press_20091215.pdf). CRU reports likewise the 5th warmest on record. GISTEMP looks like will be tied 3rd. NOAA looks like somewhere between 3rd and 5th. UAH is 6th. RSS is 7th. Global cooling in 2009. In the deep solar minimum. And yet, the trend is insignificant for 15 years for warming and 12 years cannot be rejected for cooling. 15 year running mean. Get back to me when this goes flat. Until then anything else is just confusing noise over signal. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:180 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2010 14:37:13 GMT
And yet, the trend is insignificant for 15 years for warming and 12 years cannot be rejected for cooling. 15 year running mean. Get back to me when this goes flat. Until then anything else is just confusing noise over signal. www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:180It will never go flat Socold as long as James Hansen annually "value adds" to the data! |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 13, 2010 14:51:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 15:53:20 GMT
It will never go flat Socold as long as James Hansen annually "value adds" to the data! Do you reckon Roy Spencer could fraudulently fake a sharp cooling trend? How long could Roy Spencer get away with such a thing if the other records continued to show warming? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 15:56:17 GMT
Like I said, get back to me when the 15 year running mean even goes flat. Until then your cooling is statistically insignificant. The past 15 years of all records are compatible with the longterm warm trend continuing. I use GISS just to spite you. I notice Lubobo uses UAH. I see you aren't at all concerned at him cherrypicking. Hypocrite much? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2010 16:26:16 GMT
It will never go flat Socold as long as James Hansen annually "value adds" to the data! Do you reckon Roy Spencer could fraudulently fake a sharp cooling trend? How long could Roy Spencer get away with such a thing if the other records continued to show warming? GISS is the "ONLY" record that has 2005 as the highest year on record. That should give you an answer, obviously being the only value added temperature record doesn't matter. Right here we have been regaled with flashing screens of before and after alterations to historic data. It helps when the only alternative is CRU with direct interconnections through RC and showing essentially similar "value added" adjustments to the pre-satellite record. Very clearly there is bias in this work and all of it should be subjected to a highly transparent audit of the methods and results and let the chips fall where they will. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 16:47:25 GMT
Do you reckon Roy Spencer could fraudulently fake a sharp cooling trend? How long could Roy Spencer get away with such a thing if the other records continued to show warming? GISS is the "ONLY" record that has 2005 as the highest year on record. NOAA has 2005 as highest too. You didn't answer the question. How long could Roy Spencer get away with fraudulently decrementing the temperature value at the end of each month? And let me take a bet. I bet you've only looked at flashing screens that show warming adjustments and not ones that show cooling adjustments. Very clearly your assessment is biased to claim there is bias in this work. Because for some strange reason you are unwilling to accept the fact that the satellite records show similar warming to the surface records and therefore your focus on the surface records as having "clear bias" is illogical and scientifically irresponsible. Oh and can you point me to the source code used by UAH and RSS to adjust the raw satellite data? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2010 17:30:48 GMT
GISS is the "ONLY" record that has 2005 as the highest year on record. NOAA has 2005 as highest too. You didn't answer the question. How long could Roy Spencer get away with fraudulently decrementing the temperature value at the end of each month? First, NASA is a division of NOAA. No independence there. Second, the question was answered by pointing out that NASA has been incrementing the temperature record. Being fraudulent or not is irrelevant, its unilateral and whether GISS has it right and everybody else has it wrong really doesn't matter. Indeed if the flat/cooling lasts another 20 years; eventually the divergence will need to end. But who knows how far anybody will be willing to go? And let me take a bet. I bet you've only looked at flashing screens that show warming adjustments and not ones that show cooling adjustments. I will take that bet. Very clearly your assessment is biased to claim there is bias in this work. Because for some strange reason you are unwilling to accept the fact that the satellite records show similar warming to the surface records and therefore your focus on the surface records as having "clear bias" is illogical and scientifically irresponsible. Oh and can you point me to the source code used by UAH and RSS to adjust the raw satellite data? Understand Socold, I am an auditor. Bias is pervasive and directly related to ones incentives factored by one's integrity; however, the sign of the bias correlates very strongly suggesting its only through error where the difference doesn't match bias. Thats a given. It also does not matter if anybody else does not make their methods and/or raw data available. The availability of this information is valuable to the citizenry, is funded by the citizenry; and making the information available does not appear to jeopardize national security or competitiveness. In simpler terms the public should not be obligated to trust Jim Hansen, or Roy Spencer for that matter when it is them that pay their salaries to do this work. To the extent the work is done privately or beyond the authority of an regulatory entity it shouldn't be used for legislative or regulatory action. Its a simple concept. . . .a bank for example must produce for an auditor ts due diligence in evaluating a risk. Its not a perfect system. Today for example a hearing was held in Washington DC on what went wrong in the recent financial crisis and institutions passing the buck to other institutions for risk assessment was a huge part of the discussion. Systemic risk is enhanced by delegated due diligence assessment. . . .its at the heart of what is wrong with socialism. . . .the bigger you are the harder you fall. Bottom line is this stuff should be made available. I am pleased that regulation on this area appears to be potentially forthcoming. Having been involved in such matters the number one topic at strategic planning meetings for the various journals should be how to get out in front of this as their survival will depend upon it. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jan 13, 2010 17:48:57 GMT
Like I said, get back to me when the 15 year running mean even goes flat. Until then your cooling is statistically insignificant. The past 15 years of all records are compatible with the longterm warm trend continuing. I use GISS just to spite you. I notice Lubobo uses UAH. I see you aren't at all concerned at him cherrypicking. Hypocrite much? He could have used RSS which shows more cooling for the past decade, would you prefer that? However, according to Herman et al 2008, UAH is the more accurate product and we all want the best available right? Here's some more mathematical proofs. 12 years of statistically significant cooling. www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230Enjoy, and be sure to include the SOP ad hominem in your basic argument. |
|
|
|
Post by raveninghorde on Jan 13, 2010 17:52:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 18:09:45 GMT
I don't see any raw data or source code. First comment asks if the source code is available. Crickets. All the other "skeptics" simply don't care. Selective skepticism. If that was not UAH they would demand the source code and raw data a necessary condition to accept the data. Crickets. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 13, 2010 18:11:51 GMT
Like I said, get back to me when the 15 year running mean even goes flat. Until then your cooling is statistically insignificant. The past 15 years of all records are compatible with the longterm warm trend continuing. I use GISS just to spite you. I notice Lubobo uses UAH. I see you aren't at all concerned at him cherrypicking. Hypocrite much? He could have used RSS which shows more cooling for the past decade, would you prefer that? However, according to Herman et al 2008, UAH is the more accurate product and we all want the best available right? Here's some more mathematical proofs. 12 years of statistically significant cooling. www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230Enjoy, and be sure to include the SOP ad hominem in your basic argument. Tamino has the ad homs for you, and the disproof of "cooling" Time and time again, denialists try to suggest that the last 10 years, or 9 years, or 8 years, or 7 years, or 6 years, or three and a half days of temperature data establish that the earth is cooling, in contradiction to mainstream climate science. Time and time again, they’re refuted — shown to be either utterly foolish or downright dishonest or both. Logic seems to have no effect on them.tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/In addition you contradict yourself. You claim the past 15 years of warming in UAH is statistically insignificant. Then claim the past 12 years of cooling in UAH is statistically significant. One of the claims clearly is BS. There's no way such a slight cooling trend is statistically significant if the larger warming trend is insignificant: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1992/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/trendIt's this kind of pratting around which led me to open with a nice and short point to get back to me when the 15 year running mean goes flat. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2010 18:53:49 GMT
Like I said, get back to me when the 15 year running mean even goes flat. Until then your cooling is statistically insignificant. The past 15 years of all records are compatible with the longterm warm trend continuing. I use GISS just to spite you. I notice Lubobo uses UAH. I see you aren't at all concerned at him cherrypicking. Hypocrite much? He could have used RSS which shows more cooling for the past decade, would you prefer that? However, according to Herman et al 2008, UAH is the more accurate product and we all want the best available right? Here's some more mathematical proofs. 12 years of statistically significant cooling. www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3230Enjoy, and be sure to include the SOP ad hominem in your basic argument. Loehle is arguing that "Long term persistence" or LTP cannot explain the last 12 years of UAH. But his arguments are a bit weak. He says that the "Easterling and Wehner 2009" argue that such periods have happened in the past, but Loehle says they are "unusual". Well, unusual doesn't mean impossible, and when you look at E&W they find 2 lots of 8-year long periods since 1975 (albeit overlapping), and also point out that if you ignore 1998 (which was unusual) the "unusualness of the last few years definitely goes away. I see there is another curve fitting attempt with five ludicrously precise parameters each defined to 6 significant figures use to fit to a . I could fit a herd of elephants and a few giraffes with that lot. Two other tricks have been pulled. 1. The Klyashtorin paper from which the original fit came was published in 2003 but appears not to have included data beyond 1997 (even though they reference a published source that includes data up to 2001). So the last 11 years' fit is going to be way off their precision. 2. Loehle has not shown this even though his is a 2009 paper. He has however gone to the effort of applying the fit to the satellite data instead without any particular justification of how the transfer was done, or why it should fit to the satellite data during a period when it is a really bad fit to the surface temperature data. As you can see, one doesn't need ad homs if one has an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2010 20:19:59 GMT
I don't see any raw data or source code. First comment asks if the source code is available. Crickets. Why ask me. Why not ask them. Seems to me it is all NASA's data and as far as I know nobody has refused anybody's requests. In other words, crickets are always the response to the question never asked of the correct party. All the other "skeptics" simply don't care. Selective skepticism. If that was not UAH they would demand the source code and raw data a necessary condition to accept the data. Crickets. Its obvious that one making a political argument will attack the most extreme opponent first. If they win that challenge then they don't even have to challenge the rest. . . .the political debate will be over if they selected an important enough of an initial target. Its like turning a flank in a battle. The flank turns and usually the only thing left is just how much havoc you can wreck. This is an important point that anybody considering intentionally fudging data should be aware of. So anybody challenging the satellites would be somebody that sees them as the most vulnerable. . . .and that would not be a skeptic. Like I said I am an auditor. I can say in my limited experience 95% of the bias I have seen has not been so blatant as to constitute fraud but some of the non-fraudulent bias has been severe enough to have institutions fail. When you incentivize a loan officer to write loans he is going to write as many as he can. The control is not the loan officer but instead the underwriter who operates under the direction of an executive that wants the institution to continue in business and even possibly write more loans than anybody else. The underwriter then is under pressure to accept any loan that can be shoehorned into the underwriting criteria. Incentives drive a lot of behavior sometimes even behavior designed to be balanced. UAH or RSS isn't immune to that and that information should be public also. However, the fact people have not asked for it could be for a multitude of reasons. I will itemize a few. 1) The science method used by the satellites relies less on interpolation and judgement, thus unintentional bias is likely greatly reduced. 2) The science method used by the satellites is more straight forward thus any hanky panky would be more difficult to pull off. 3) AGW advocates may not have asked for the source data (obviously skeptics would not pick these first) of the satellites because they know intuitively that the warmer data is being fudged and thus do not want to set a precedence. 4) Most if not all climate science is produced by academia and government institutions. . . .both of which sport close to a 4:1 majority of a single political party. Since AGW advocates belong to the same political party as the vast majority of academia and the civil service they question the results less. Fairly good evidence can be seen of that by how the reactions flip flop each time the Heartland Institute is involved in any research. Does any of that make any sense to you Socold? If it does I think you probably should recognize you are trying to build a strawman here. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 13, 2010 20:34:56 GMT
Loehle is arguing that "Long term persistence" or LTP cannot explain the last 12 years of UAH. But his arguments are a bit weak. He says that the "Easterling and Wehner 2009" argue that such periods have happened in the past, but Loehle says they are "unusual". Well, unusual doesn't mean impossible, and when you look at E&W they find 2 lots of 8-year long periods since 1975 (albeit overlapping), and also point out that if you ignore 1998 (which was unusual) the "unusualness of the last few years definitely goes away. I see there is another curve fitting attempt with five ludicrously precise parameters each defined to 6 significant figures use to fit to a . I could fit a herd of elephants and a few giraffes with that lot. Two other tricks have been pulled. 1. The Klyashtorin paper from which the original fit came was published in 2003 but appears not to have included data beyond 1997 (even though they reference a published source that includes data up to 2001). So the last 11 years' fit is going to be way off their precision. 2. Loehle has not shown this even though his is a 2009 paper. He has however gone to the effort of applying the fit to the satellite data instead without any particular justification of how the transfer was done, or why it should fit to the satellite data during a period when it is a really bad fit to the surface temperature data. As you can see, one doesn't need ad homs if one has an argument. Steve, I think thats one of your better posts. I agree the jury is still out. I think there is now a far wider acknowledgment within the science community that this issue is unsettled. Even Gavin Schmidt can be heard to be quietly humming that tune under his breath. Just a couple of years ago, and what rose my antenna on this issue was similar to McIntyre's motivation. . . .some rather strident claims about knowing with certainty stuff that just did not appear certain at all. In other words one could argue that if the objective was governmental action; Schneider, Briffa, Mann, Jones, Wigley et al are all their own worst enemies. If what their objective was to broaden the debate and bring attention to the issue; then they have been successful. . . .and the latter is in perfect harmony with recent posts on RC. Who knows maybe even the terms "denialist" and "science denier" will disappear into history and Gavin will stop deleting so many skeptic posts. |
|
