Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
  • Jun 24 - Mark Hodgson on
    COP 23
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > (A)GW Lite

RKS, I see you have promoted it to wrecking our civilisation now, not just the economy. Care to justify? Then again perhaps not...

May 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

RKS, I see you have promoted it to wrecking our civilisation now, not just the economy. Care to justify? Then again perhaps not...

May 24, 2012 at 1:19 AM | BitBucket>>>>>

Beginning to sound just as stupid and disruptive as ZDB!

DNFTT

May 24, 2012 at 1:32 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

"Let's forget about climate drivers and witter on endlessly, and pointlessly, about our favourite collection of temperature data sets used to confirm our prejudices."

Ha. :)

Do you want to look at this graph? How about this one? Or what about this?

logicothingy

That's RSS you doofus! They're the Other Lot ;-)

As though knowing the everyday crap jargon of climate science made anyone wise. What a jerk!

May 24, 2012 at 1:42 AM | Registered Commentershub

"Let's forget about climate drivers and witter on endlessly, and pointlessly, about our favourite collection of temperature data sets used to confirm our prejudices."

Ha. :)

Do you want to look at this graph? How about this one? Or what about this?

logicothingy
That's RSS you doofus! They're the Other Lot ;-)

As though knowing the everyday crap jargon of climate science made anyone wise. What a jerk!

May 24, 2012 at 1:42 AM | shub>>>>

I'm an old git with a pretty thick skin but, so I don't misunderstand, I don't think your last remark was aimed at the quote from my post, but rather the highlighted BBD comment. Is that so?

May 24, 2012 at 2:00 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Shub: "Muller did a temperature reconstruction. How does that get 'to the bottom' of UHI?" As I understand it the BEST report shows that the disputed temperature records are not distorted by UHI, as had been claimed by some people. I'd say that is getting to the bottom of it - ie debunking it. Wouldn't you?

May 24, 2012 at 2:48 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

Yeah RK. That was for BBD, who is attempting to berate logico for mixing up RSS and UAH.

May 24, 2012 at 2:49 AM | Registered Commentershub

Yeah RK. That was for BBD, who is attempting to berate logico for mixing up RSS and UAH.

May 24, 2012 at 2:49 AM | shub>>>>

As I thought.

We seem to have a reincarnated troll, under a new name, who claims to be an innocent bystander here to learn about climate, and then lets itself down by quoting from temperature data sets complete with jargon.

I think it's had far too much encouragement so far by well meaning contributors, and is becoming increasingly disruptive.

May 24, 2012 at 3:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Bitbucket
You just repeated yourself there.

How does a temperature reconstruction exclude uhi? What I was interested in is the 'how'.

The BEST methodology addresses one aspect of the task of reconstruction, namely the observer/human element in data collation in temperature sets. It appears to apply non-discriminating, large scale data-transforms and unselected sampling to temperature series to overcome perceived and possible bias of station selection, infilling and discontinuity.

The BEST uhi paper uses the logic: rural stations with BEST method-all stations with BEST method = very low value. Therefore uhi has no effect. But the 'BEST method' is already an enormous non-discriminant data grinder and it is not a priori clear what its numbers mean.

How does one use it to quantify UHI?

I find the UHI discussions always to be strange. It goes like this: UHI is a substantial thing (and we all know this from our everyday and life experience). The global grid is made of stations afloat in this uhi. But our method separates uhi contributions from the true underlying trend. After that is done, we see that there is little uhi left. Therefore, uhi is insubstantial.

To me, this method of argument seems circular. If one wants to say something about uhi, one ought to quantify it first.

May 24, 2012 at 3:36 AM | Registered Commentershub

RK
I agree. Somehow I am completely unconvinced by bitbucket and his, "oh, I just went to wikipedia and read this up, is it true?" act.

May 24, 2012 at 3:39 AM | Registered Commentershub

RK
I agree. Somehow I am completely unconvinced by bitbucket and his, "oh, I just went to wikipedia and read this up, is it true?" act.

May 24, 2012 at 3:39 AM | shub>>>>

Cheers!

Your comments on UHI are interesting, but not being much into climate statistics myself I can only imagine that an enormous amount of fudging has to go on to account for it in global statistics.

As you have probably noticed by now I don't regard GHG's as a major climate driver, so all these measurements show to me is a natural variability over which we have no influence or control.

May 24, 2012 at 3:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

James brought up the issue of UHI, not me. I was just trying to find out where he is coming from on both that and on the distortion of all temperature records, apparently by one man (Hansen).

I thought the UHI thing went something like this: Sceptics don't like the instrumental record because it shows rising temperatures. They claim the data is distorted by urban heating effects and physicist Muller supports their view. Muller, supported by the Koch brothers, starts a project aimed at showing that the temperature records are indeed distorted and people like Watts say how happy they are and that they will support anything he discovers. When he then discovers that the records do indeed indicate rising temperature the sceptics disown him and disavow his methods and results. Did I miss anything?

May 24, 2012 at 4:01 AM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket

RK
I agree. Somehow I am completely unconvinced by bitbucket and his, "oh, I just went to wikipedia and read this up, is it true?" act.

May 24, 2012 at 3:39 AM | shub>>>>

Did you notice the troll trying to bait people into a pointless and disruptive argument again?

The writing style seems familiar as well [notice the British way of spelling sceptic when it tries to refer to "those clever Brits"]

Amazing how in depth it's knowledge about blogs and people is from just looking at Wikipedia isn't it.

Perhaps a little campaign to forewarn other might be instigated on Unthreaded regarding this dishonest shyster.

May 24, 2012 at 4:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

"Sceptics don't like the instrumental record because it shows rising temperatures."

No that is not right. It is the 'warmists" who dont like the instrumental record because it shows them rising temperatures. Sceptics like warmth.

On your second point:
Muller distrusted the temperature data arising from the untrustworthiness on display in the Climategate emails, given that it was the same people in the emails who were creating the temperature datasets.

Skeptics do claim that the global land data is distorted by urban heating effects. I am sure Muller had similar doubts (which is why his group addressed the question). Not everyone does so, but many do.

Muller, supported by the Koch brothers, moved in to occupy the space created in the credibility vaccuum of Climategate.

Only in the stupidity of the prone-to-propaganda warmies can an idea be born that Muller started his project aimed at showing that the 'temperature records are distorted'. The aim of the Mullerian method is to bring a modern, statistical approach to data mining the entire available temperature series.

The sceptics 'disowned' him, if at all, for the weird statements he made to the press when releasing his preliminary results. Going by what you say, Judith Curry, a co-author of the BEST papers disagreed with Muller too. Does that mean she 'disowned' him?

In summary, some of Muller's statements to the press are unsupported by his own evidence. Some others of his statements are not representative of the questions reasonable people have about the 'case for anthropogenic global warming'.

I can go look for his interviews and the BEST press releases and dig them out, if you like.

May 24, 2012 at 4:20 AM | Registered Commentershub

Bit
I think it would be better if you address the insinuations of dishonesty that have been thrown at you by me, and RKS.

Be yourself. I don't want to waste my time, as I am sure you feel too.

May 24, 2012 at 4:22 AM | Registered Commentershub

RK
I agree. Somehow I am completely unconvinced by bitbucket and his, "oh, I just went to wikipedia and read this up, is it true?" act.

May 24, 2012 at 3:39 AM | shub>>>>

Did you notice the troll trying to bait people into a pointless and disruptive argument again?

The writing style seems familiar as well [notice the British way of spelling sceptic when it tries to refer to "those clever Brits"]

Amazing how in depth it's knowledge about blogs and people is from just looking at Wikipedia isn't it.

Perhaps a little campaign to forewarn other might be instigated on Unthreaded regarding this dishonest shyster.

May 24, 2012 at 4:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Odd, and unintentional, for my last post to come up twice.

May 24, 2012 at 4:27 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

I don't think BitBucket is an actual troll, but he does sometmies use language which is... not designed to accommodate inclusive debate, let's say. It's a habit with warmist trolls too, such as Zed and BBD, which is why he's being mis-identified, I believe.

Still, it keeps the fighting off Unthreaded.

May 24, 2012 at 8:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

@BBD

You wrote:

"logicothingy - That's RSS you doofus! They're the Other Lot ;-) Spencer works at the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). The clue is in the name. Deary me!"

[Urban Dictionary: "Doofus - Someone who hasn't got a clue."]

I thought I had a clue. You specifically said the Spencer plot in the composite was "purple" so I looked at the legend in the top left and the purple line is clearly labelled RSS... So I had a brief look at the Woodfortrees tool and called up the RSS lower troposphere graph which - obviously by total coincidence - happens to look almost exactly like the satellite lower troposphere plot in Roy Spencer's "The Great Global Warming Blunder" (page 3 fig 1 lower plot LAST 30 YEARS). So I did "have a clue" given by yourself and WFT - the colour purple, except it wasn't a clue after all. Nice trap of yours. Thanks a lot, Big Bad Doofus.

May 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterlogicophilosophicus

Oh dear. In the real world, where I live, when you screw up, you *own the fault*.

You don't know the difference between RSS and UAH. Perhaps you should leave the data visualisation tools alone for a while and do some intensive background reading.

May 24, 2012 at 9:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

TBYJ

No, I believe the tampering is mostly one man - Hansen. No conspiracy needed or asked for. He's even 'lost' the raw data. His tampering is not qualitative, temps are going up as satellite measurements show, but every time he touches the record, old temps go down, new temps go up.

I've been pondering this in the spirit of open-minded inquiry and there's another problem.

If Hansen is fiddling GISTEMP, then why does it trend lower than HADCRUT4?

Either you are mistakenly accusing Hansen of the most serious imaginable scientific misconduct, or you need to widen this accusation. This is something we've already touched on in a light-hearted fashion and from which you retreated abruptly. Presumably when faced with the absurdity of a global conspiracy of climatologists and oceanographers bent on world domination :-)

May 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD, I'm faced here with a dilemma. I like debating this stuff, but I've been around t'internet long enough to know when someone is talking merely to satisfy their own amusement, and when someone is talking in order to learn about someone's point of view in order to potentially modify their own.

You're not actually interested in what I think, not interested in convincing me I'm wrong by use of logic or evidence. What you enjoy here is watching people line up ducks which you can pop off one at a time with your pre-prepared replies. This is sport for you. I'm sure underneath there is the hope that one day someone will present you with something which rocks your world, but the continual disappointment of this not happening has led you to a rather robotic attitude in your replies.

You might as well shout "Next!" at the end of each of your posts, complete with the sound of you reloading the shotgun. This is really fun for you? What are you getting out of it? A feeling of smug satisfaction? I can tell right now that you're not here in a spirit of educating those you consider mistaken. That is what makes you a troll.

GISTEMP trends lower than HADCRUT because Jones is even worse.

May 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

BBD: Yes, that's what I thought - who screwed up? Is the purple UAH as you said, or RSS as Woodfortrees says? You sent me there: "And what about Roy Spencer??? (Hint: the purple bit at the upper right is the UAH tropospheric satellite reconstruction. Looks like the bastards got to Roy in the end, eh?)." The PURPLE BIT.

So I think you need to clarify rather than sneering. I leave the alphabet soup to you. Tell me about the PURPLE BIT.

May 24, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered Commenterlogicophilosophicus

TBYJ

You're not actually interested in what I think, not interested in convincing me I'm wrong by use of logic or evidence.

But that's not true. I have used logic and evidence mixed with as much good humour as possible in my exchange with you. I'm saddened that you have retreated further into denial instead of engaging in a spirit of open-minded debate.

Has it *ever* occurred to you that the point of view that is in desperate need of modification is your own?

GISTEMP trends lower than HADCRUT because Jones is even worse.

Oh for goodness' sake. *Any* evidence? No, of course not. Go on then, back into your little world of paranoid fantasy and conspiracy theories.

May 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

logicowotsit

So I think you need to clarify rather than sneering. I leave the alphabet soup to you. Tell me about the PURPLE BIT.

But I did. When you first made your boo-boo, I posted a clarification, just for you, at May 23, 2012 at 8:53 PM.
Moreover, I didn't 'send' you anywhere. The original comment was addressed to TBYJ, not you. You jumped in, messed up because you know nothing, and instead of having the good grace to own your error, you are trying to make out that I tricked you. This is feeble indeed.

Has it yet occurred to you that the reason I drew TBYJ's attention to the *purple bit* was not to mislead you, or him? It's just the way the graph came out. I really can't be held accountable for your actions or your lack of knowledge. Dare I say it, you need to grow up a bit.

May 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

"I have used logic and evidence mixed with as much good humour as possible in my exchange with you"

If you think calling people names is in good humour, perhaps something is wrong with you.

From all that you have done with WFT - disrupting discussions with your meaningless graphs, to drawing trend-lines that, mercifully, showed up your ignorant approach, it is you who should be prevented from accessing tools like WFT. There is a similar concept about people using PCR and statistics packages.

May 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM | Registered Commentershub