Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Evidence for Rhoda and Dung

Michal hart

It could certainly be expanded to four questions.

What role do different types of cloud play in the radiation and energy budget of the climate system?

Is this changing with time?

Why?

If changes are happening, what effect do the changes have on the climate system?

Dec 8, 2015 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Martin A

Be careful what you wish for.😕

I'm going to take a little while to digest your last post.

I am not sure that the approach you describe is unfamiliar to climate modellers. I have seen state-space representation and state-space formulation mentioned in their technical documentation.

Dec 8, 2015 at 4:34 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM
Many eminent scientist do not swallow the BS you spout. Prof. Richard Lindzen, Prof. William Happer. Prof. Judith Curry, Prof. Robert Carter to name but a few.

Dec 9, 2015 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

EM Here are a couple of videos by eminent scientists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw Prof. William Happer (Currently giving evidence to Congress)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdTlXuTwvEQ Dr. Ivar Giaever

Dec 9, 2015 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterRoss Lea

Ross Lea

Eminent? I think not.

Did you watch Curry and Happer embarrass themselves in Senate committee yesterday?

Dec 9, 2015 at 6:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

That is rather pathetic, even by your standards, EM.

Dec 9, 2015 at 7:53 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

Curry and Happer went on about the pause.

I share Admiral Titley's view.

. The pause, if it ever existed, is over.

Dec 9, 2015 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The pause, if it ever existed, is over.
You wish.

Oddly enough, though, if you are right, you may regret the gloating inherent in that statement, as it is probably more likely to go down than continue the rise. We shall see.

Dec 9, 2015 at 10:49 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I share Admiral Titley's view.
. The pause, if it ever existed, is over.
Dec 9, 2015 at 8:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - what do you think that image tells us about Titley? What do you think it tells us about you?

It is very convincing but not in the way you probably would wish.

Dec 10, 2015 at 7:44 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

I don't think anyone is in a position to say if the pause will continue, go up or go down.
That's why this is a contentious subject, rife with opinion.

If you've ever dabbled with binary currency trading, you'll know that most people lose their shirts.

Dec 10, 2015 at 9:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

TheBigYinJames

I note that in the GISS record the 5- year average centred on 1998 was 0.46C +/-0.09C.

The most recent 5-year average centred on 2012 was 0.67C+/-0.09C.

The temperature increase over that period is 0.21C. The probability that this difference is due to random variation is less than 5% (The threshold for significance is 0.18C in this case).

There has been statistically significant warming since 1998, which makes it difficult for me to accept an ongoing pause.

With the annual temperatures for 2015 and 2016 both likely to exceed 0.82C the 2013 5-year average would be 0.68C and the 2014 5-year average around 0.73C.

If you would like to claim that an observed increase in 5-year average of 0.21C in 14 years and a probable increase of 0.27C in 16 years is a pause, feel free, but do not expect me to take you seriously hereafter.

Dec 10, 2015 at 12:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I've never argued for a pause, as I've said previously, I am a Lukewarmer, I expect temperatures to go up about another 0.5-0.7 degrees over the next 50 odd years, mostly due to already accumulated greenhouse gases.

If you really must strawman me, at least make it something I've said.

Dec 10, 2015 at 12:58 PM | Unregistered CommenterTheBigYinJames

The BigYinJames

My apologies. Consider my 12.53pm post aimed at Martin A and Radical Rodent.

Dec 10, 2015 at 1:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

The probability that this difference is due to random variation is less than 5% (The threshold for significance is 0.18C in this case).

EM - you have been told many times by various people that making statistical statements like that when you don't have a statistical model and the prerequisites for doing such calculations are absent is bullshit in a wrapper.

Titley is a politician. What are you?

Dec 10, 2015 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

Entropic man: are those figures before or after they have been adjusted by NASA?

Dec 10, 2015 at 2:53 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A

I'm quite happy to use GISS data and their statistical model.

Radical Rodent

Judge for yourself

Dec 10, 2015 at 3:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Therein lies the rub, EM. You see, for quite some time, we have been told that, after falling about 0.3°C for the 30 years after 1945 (prompting the alarm for an oncoming ice age), temperatures then rose some 0.5°C from 1975, on a trend that was little different from the 30-year rise that occurred before WW2, until the plateau began after the 1998 el nino. Now, we are being told that the temperatures have risen 0.8°C since 1950; a drastically different story, I am sure you would agree. The trend in that pretty little graph you linked to seems to be very much steeper than previous trends; now, I have searched for graphs closer to those of my own recollection, but cannot seem to find any. I am beginning to suspect that there might be very serious tampering with historical data.

Dec 10, 2015 at 5:17 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

"EM - you have been told many times by various people that making statistical statements like that when you don't have a statistical model and the prerequisites for doing such calculations are absent is bullshit in a wrapper."

I'm quite happy to use GISS data and their statistical model.

EM I think you must have been watching Today In Parliement to have learned how to answer with a relevant sounding reply that dodges the point like that.

Neither you nor GISS have a statistical model for that time series that enables meaningful intervals to be calculated nor to say what is 'random variation' and what is the underlying process.

Dec 10, 2015 at 5:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin A

The purpose of temperature data at the time it was taken was to provide raw material for weather forecasts.

Decades later the same data is being used to determine long term trends.

For this purpose it is worthwhile to identify systemic errors in past records and try to deuce what the actual temperatures were..

You can see this in the graph. IIRC two main errors showed up.

If you change the time of day at which the readings were taken, you change the average temperature. This is why the pre-1940 data was underestimating temperatures.

Traditionally water temperatures were taken in a bucket on deck. Evaporation led them to underread. In WW2 water temperatures were taken using a thermometer on the engine cooling water intake. Engine rooms were warm, so thermometers over read.

As a result the 1940s peak has disappeared and the adjusted pre-1940s data is warmer. Post 1970 lhere is very little adjustment.

This raises an interesting question for a conspiracy theorist like yourself. The adjusted data shows less less warming than the raw data. I fail to understand why NASA adjusted the data to reduce the rate of warming if there was a conspiracy to falsly present a larger increase

Dec 10, 2015 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

If you change the time of day at which the readings were taken, you change the average temperature. This is why the pre-1940 data was underestimating temperatures.
No, this does not explain why. And, even if it did, it does not explain why these underestimated pre-1940 readings have generally been adjusted down. Surely, if they have been underestimated, they should be adjusted up?

Meteorological readings should be taken at 6-hourly intervals, most commonly set to GMT for the UKMO – thus midnight, 0600, 1200 and 1800. At least one of these readings is likely to be during the warmest part of the day, and one during the coolest. These readings include wet and dry bulb temperatures, barometer, barograph trend, estimates of surface wind speed and direction, visibility, and cloud heights, type and coverage; if at sea, sea state and swell height, length and direction are also required. At sea, water temperatures were taken with the aid of a specially-designed bucket, minimising the effect of evaporation; as a reading from even the highest freeboard vessel could be obtained within 3 minutes of collection, it could be argued that evaporation would have had very little effect on the contents, anyway. Engine intakes are not used for met observations, as the intake could be anywhere from 2 metres to 22 metres below the surface, and the met office is (was?) insistent that it had to be a sea-surface reading (okay, the turbulence in a ship’s wash does detract from it being a true surface reading but, hey, let’s be practical!). There is also the point that engine intake thermometers may not be as accurate or have been calibrated as required, which makes any readings obtained very suspect.

Oh, yes – and a nice little ad hom sneaked in there, EM.

Dec 10, 2015 at 6:18 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Martin A

A few figures for GISS.

Sample size for an annual average is number of stations * days * frequency of observation. Let's say 3000*365*2.

n=2,190,000.

Confidence limits are published, which would only be possible if the frequency distribution For GISS the confidence limits of an annual average are quoted as +/- 0.09.
Since confidence limits are+/- 2 standard deviations we can deduce:

SD=0.045

In summary, for each annual average tthe raw data has a Gaussian frequency distribution; n=2,000,000+, SD=0.045

This is enough information about the GISS data for me to do a quick and dirty comparison between the means for two years or groups of years. The null hypothesis for the comparison is that any difference is due to random variation.

If the difference between the two means exceeds 4 standard deviations, the chance of the null hypothesis being correct, ie the difference being due to random chance, is less than 5%. This is the threshold at which one accepts that something is causing the difference, in this case a trend in temperature.

More complex tests such as Student's t can be used, but they do not change the basic principle.

Feel free to put up a rebuttal, but no hand waving , please. Show me numbers.

Dec 10, 2015 at 6:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Radical Rodent

"Surely, if they have been underestimated, they should be adjusted up?"

That is what happens when I use a graph from a sceptic site☺

This is the original Figure 2 from Karl et al

Look at the green graph. The lighter line is the raw data, The darker line is the adjusted data. The pre-1940 data has been adjusted up.

Dec 10, 2015 at 7:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Thank you, EM. What a pity this makes all graphs somewhat suspicious – which is the correct one? And can we really take your assurances that you know which it is? After all, you are getting the information you want, aren’t you?

At least, it does show why people are saying, “0.8K since 1950” – had they chosen 1945, they would only have been able to claim 0.5K. Kinda lessens the impact a bit, doesn’t it? Why haven’t they used the “0.9K since 1960” spiel?

Dec 10, 2015 at 7:15 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

"I am beginning to suspect that there might be very serious tampering with historical data."

Sounds like you are proposing a conspiracy theory.

Dec 10, 2015 at 7:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM, are you ignoring the issue that the TOB can affect the min/max because, taken at the wrong time they can carry over from one day to the next?

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Dec 10, 2015 at 7:24 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart