Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 Next
Comments 70901 to 70950:
-
AussieinUSA at 03:19 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Like Stevo@9, to me what would be important is the delta temp change. Even if there was some effect from the surrounds which I don't believe there would be, it is the delta change from year to year that is important. I see this argument about location as revelant as a denier stating that we cannot have a cold day if AGW is real. Once again thou, another well thought and written article. -
Eric (skeptic) at 02:51 AM on 5 November 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
I mentioned government-built roads as a contrast to goods and services modulated by a free market. I just saw this article http://english.caixin.cn/2011-10-31/100319471.html that shows how even that relatively simple allocation of resources to demand can be flawed. Not trying to suggest there is only state control or free markets and nothing in between. For contrast to the article about China, here is a CATO article http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5837 in which they mention the Dulles Greenway, a private toll road not to far from me. Subsidies directly from the road were used to prompt relatively dense development along it, now serviced by Loudon county's privately run bus line. -
JMurphy at 02:30 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Maybe off-topic with regards to the actual subject of the post, but it does concern one of the main subjects : Watts. I can't see how he can be described as a meteorologist when he has no qualifications in that field and doesn't actually work in the field - he is retired, like so many of the so-called skeptics. He admits his lack of relevant qualifications generally on his own blog, although he does try to deflect away by the usual unrelated diversion : "While I’m not a degreed climate scientist, I’ll point out that neither is Al Gore, and his specialty is presentation also." -
Tom Curtis at 02:25 AM on 5 November 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Fred Staples @1120: 1) The atmosphere will only radiate equal amounts up and down if there is no change of temperature with altitude. That is only a reasonable approximation for very thin slices of atmosphere, although it is a common simplifying assumption for unrealistic models used only to explain basic concepts. If you are trying to prove the "un-physicality" of the greenhouse effect, you are not entitled to use an un-physical model to do so. 2) Your first model state not in equilibrium. The surface is said to receive 1 W radiation from the sun, and 0.5 W radiation from the atmosphere. Therefore it should radiation 1.5 W radiation, of which half (0.75 W) is absorbed by the atmosphere. That means at the TOA the outgoing radiation is 0.5 W from the atmosphere and 0.75 W from the surface, which is 0.25 W greater than the 1 W incoming radiation. Meanwhile the atmosphere is absorbing only 0.75 W, but is radiating 1 W (0.5 W up, and the same down), making a shortfall of 0.25 W. Hence, in your model as specified, the atmosphere is rapidly loosing energy to space. These models do have equilibrium states, and they can be found, but you can't avoid the algebra if you wish to do so. 3) Your description of a perfectly absorbing, optical depth 1 atmosphere with uniform temperature is correct. The model is, of course, unphysical, and only used to explain basic concepts. Having said that, I do not know what point you are trying to make by describing it, nor by your final comment. -
Alex C at 02:19 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
The outward radiative temperature of the stations do not accurately reflect the internal temperature of the air, especially in the case where the station is well-ventilated. I would presume that such open-screened housing units as those shown don't let air stagnate within. In any case, if it indeed was true that the ground temperature/housing temperature (as yes they do appear the same, more or less) was the one being recorded, then the fact that the housing unit and ground are *cooler* in each photograph than the ambient air would suggest a cooling bias in temperature, not a warming bias. Time lapse images, I would think, wouldn't help at all. What would help is if you compared the thermometer readings with the IR temperatures of the surrounding unit and ground - if the temperature follows those, instead of the ambient air, then there's a problem. -
caerbannog at 02:18 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Of course, many folks remember the following claim that Watts made in this non-peer-reviewed publication.4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting. 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
Of course, there is a simple and straightforward way to test this supposed "dropped stations" effect. You simply compare global-average temperature anomalies computed from all the stations with the temperature anomalies computed from just the stations that are still actively reporting data. Do that, and you will find that the "dropped stations" effect is virtually nonexistent. I did exactly that some time ago with my own simple gridding/averaging routine, and here are my results (computed from GHCN *raw* data):
-
Tom Curtis at 02:03 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Camburn @24, the bulb of a thermometer in a weather station doss not rest against the side of its screen. Therefore, it measures air temperature, not enclosure temperature. The question the becomes, does the enclosure effectively screen the thermometer from sources of radiant energy. The fact that screens near hot spots remain cool strongly suggests that they do, and that the thermometer does in fact measure local air temperature. That local air temperature may have been raised by nearby concrete structures, and observing the cool screen tells us nothing about that sort of bias. Nor do I think these pictures are enough to determine whether a bias exists from the radiant heat sources or not, as I do not presume to be able to judge IR temperature to tenths of a degree by brightness in a photo. But the cool screens do show that these pictures do not prove bias. -
Troy_CA at 02:02 AM on 5 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Jim, Certainly, it is subjective and up to you, as it is your database. However, I'll note that the Forster and Gregory (2006) was one of 10 studies included in the "constrained by past transient temperature evolutions" climate sensitivity box of AR4: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/box-10-2-figure-1.html. Furthermore, the Murphy et al (JGR, 2009) paper basically just expands on the method, and there is more confident language used in that paper (indeed, they are confident enough in the method that they attempt to diagnose the aerosol forcings based on the sensitivity calculated early in the paper). The SB criticisms equally apply to Murphy et al (2009), which uses the same method as FG06. Basically, if I were going to make a peer-reviewed case for low sensitivity, I would try to show how the various lines of evidence for current estimates are flawed, and that correcting for these flaws would actually point to lower sensitivity. So, for example, I would use MMH2010 and the other model comparison papers to show that the models are running hot (and hence may overestimate sensitivity), the SB papers to show that the FG06 method should yield a lower sensitivity, the Douglas and Knox (2009) OHC paper to show that ocean warming suggests that the ECS is closer to the TCS, etc. I think that looking for a single paper that discredits the entire case for the IPCC likely value of ECS will turn up some crank papers, but that won't be the strongest case you can make in the peer-reviewed literature. So, that's why I would lobby for many of those papers that you don't necessarily see as "big picture". But, as you say, it's a judgment call. -
bibasir at 01:19 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Watts and other deniers claim they will wait for peer review of the Best study. This is a copout for two reasons. First, they don't seem to rely on peer review or even good critical review for reports, presentations, and papers that support their positions. Second, peer review is far more important for papers that add significant new findings to the science or claim to overturn existing conclusions. Best only confirmed several previous studies. How restrained would Watts be if Best had contradicted the prior conclusions? Just look at the headlines based on the Salby video. Curry's only comment to Salby was "wow," no analysis of the science. -
Fred Staples at 01:12 AM on 5 November 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
I return to this thread to present a theory of greenhouse warming which appears all over the blogs, and in some text-books, to defend a position I took in the “After McClean” thread. If we accept the Stefan-Bolzmann fourth power law of radiation, and ignore other means of heat transfer it can be done very simply. Start with a bare rock earth radiating back to the sun the incoming radiation of W watts per square meter. In order to radiate this energy back, the earth will acquire a mean temperature of 255 degrees K. Now build up an atmosphere capable of absorbing and re-radiating part of the outgoing radiation. It will radiate equal intensities, up and down. To avoid typing algebra, I will pause the analysis when the atmosphere can absorb half of the outgoing radiation.. The atmosphere will then radiate W/2 to space, and the surface (directly to space) also W/2. This means that the atmosphere must receive W from the surface (half out, half back) and the surface will receive W (from the sun) and W/2 from they atmosphere. The surface must consequently be warmed (by the sun) to radiate W + W/2. Now continue the build-up until all (100%) of the outgoing radiation is being absorbed. At that point everything reaches “goldilocks” equilibrium. The earth radiates 2W, the atmosphere receives 2W, and radiates W to space, W back to the surface. What is the ratio of the new surface temperature to the bare rock temperature? It is the fourth root of the radiant energy ratio, 2W/W. The fourth root of 2 is 1.19, so we would expect a greenhouse temperature of 1.19 x 255, or 303 degrees K. The effective radiative temperature must be 255 degrees K (goldilocks again). Why pay more?Response:[DB] "Why pay more?"
If by this you mean:
Q. Why have a more complex and robust model that explains fairly well everything we can observationally measure when we can opt for something far simpler that explains very little?
A. Because life and physics seldom contort themselves to simple models. Why have a faux relationship when the real thing is so much richer?.
-
Climate's changed before
lancelot - If I've misinterpreted your posts, overreacted, my apologies. What I was reacting to is in large part the series of different skeptic arguments you have presented, pointing every which way. That can be very hard to distinguish from the behavior of a Concern Troll. I will note, however, that the vast well of knowledge does reward those who put in some effort. In my last post I spent ~20 seconds on Google Scholar using the search term "Dickens G R 1999, Nature" from your post (clicking on the first PDF), roughly two minutes looking through the abstract, initial sections, and conclusions - and found clear information completely dismissing a 'heat from the crust' scenario. That's two and a half minutes. And this is not my professional field. Alternatively, using the "Search" box here on SkS, with the term "crust", links to some relevant threads discussing particular climate issues, such as the recent Heat from the Earth’s interior does not control climate. I'm glad you are actually looking for information on climate change. Far too many take a personally/ideologically attractive position, stick their fingers in their ears and sing 'lalala", as I'm sure you've seen. I would encourage both your curiosity - and perhaps a bit more use of search capabilities. -
John Russell at 00:49 AM on 5 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Unfortunately, Camburn makes my point for me (about robust arguments). However, though he's right about ground temperatures and air temperatures often being very different, the fact that the station temperature and the grass temp seem to be the same in the photograph is not meaningful, in that that situation is not unusual. Only a series of time lapse images would provide statistically meaningful data. Looking again, I would say that the very last thermal image above makes our point best. The grass 1 metre from the warm concrete slab is at the same temperature as the grass 5 metres away, and again 30+ metres away -- and all the grass is at the same temperature as the weather station. This suggests that heat from the slab is not influencing temperatures significantly, beyond a very short distance (50cm?). The thin metal shield round the sensor kills any radiant heat from surroundings, so that can be discounted. If anything, air warmed by the slab and convected directly upwards will pull in air at ambient temperature from the surroundings and this will tend to ensure that the weather station produces an accurate reading of local air temperature. If the station was sitting on the concrete slab that could be very different. -
Fred Staples at 00:37 AM on 5 November 20119 Months After McLean
Very well DB,(36) I will return to the G and T Second Law thread and present a back-radiation case for greenhouse warming, without comment. Perhaps afterwards we can revisit perpetual motion (joke again, Composer99, 33). As far as the CET/Tamino projections the thread has vanished (sadly missed) but I kept a note of the comments: Tamino, with at auto-regressive polynomial fit claimed to see a really substantial and significant trend of 0.5 degrees per centigrade towards the end of the record (2007). Dismissing my humble (but rigorous) linear regression, Tamino wrote: ““Oh My, the trend over the last ten years is 0.5 degrees per decade” I replied :” Since the previous decade finished at about 10.5 degrees, Tamino, you presumably expect this one to finish at an unprecedented 11 degree centigrade. Now that would be surprising.” The following years came in at 2008 – 9.96 and 2009 – 10.11, and the trend for the decade was not significantly different from zero.Response:[DB] "As far as the CET/Tamino projections the thread has vanished (sadly missed) but I kept a note of the comments"
I, too keep track of things. Such as the location of the supposedly-missing Central England Temperature thread. Here are your comments on the CET thread you maintain has vanished:
May 3, 2008
May 8, 2008
May 12, 2008
May 13, 2008
July 7, 2008
July 8, 2008
August 7, 2008
August 22, 2008
September 7, 2008
September 9, 2008
October 3, 2008
November 12, 2008The astute reader will note both the responses to you and the posting behavior you employ.
-
les at 23:48 PM on 4 November 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
42 - lancelot "In due course I plan to redraw it using a proper CAD programme" Just a small point on methods. Drawing a graph with a CAD program is not really the thing to do - as is manipulating plots to compare them in this way... not to mention "looks correct" - the eyeball-o-meter. If you want to understand the data and compare different data sets, you need to get hold of the numbers and put them in something like Excel (if you must!) or better: R, matlab, octave, SciPy (others will have their preferred tools). Only in that way can you be sure plots are correctly scaled and aligned; and you'll have the tools to do stats etc. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:47 PM on 4 November 2011GHG emission mitigation solutions - a challenge for the Right?
Tristan and scaddenp, you may be right about the "average" libertarian, but the probability distribution of libertarians includes those who care very much about the environment (and probably some on the other end of the spectrum). One common libertarian idea is that free markets are the best way to allocate scarce resources (a little less lofty than your pinnacle description Tristan). The basic idea is that the price signal is the most effective communication between producers and consumers. Other comm links have been tried and work in narrow areas (e.g. government deciding what roads to build), but not in others. I and other libertarian leaners expect that the energy market would be best served with a market signal. The question is how to alter or adjust the market signal to account for global warming externalities. The problem I would have with most cap and trade systems is that someone (probably in government) has to decide on the environmental value of various offsets using model predictions which is quite different from the more traditional role of government to measure pollution after the fact and levy fines. That is why I much prefer Hansen's proposal of taxing fossil fuels at the source and rebating the money to the people. But that has problems too, someone has to decide on the fossil fuel component of imports. For example, were they built in a coal-powered factory or a natural gas powered factory at 1/2 the CO2 cost? These problems are not insurmountable since for the most part they are measurements, not model outputs, but they will require a fairly extensive measurement infrastructure. Alternatively we can just heavily tax products from China, but that will engender a lot of political horse trading. Free markets can add a lot of value even in the face of high tariffs but we have to be careful not to create black markets. -
Camburn at 23:46 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Sorry to burst a bubble, but if the stations are the same temperature as the ground, which they appear to be in a couple of photo's, then the reading is really screwed up. Ground temperatures are only the same as air temps as the air temp rises or falls. Prob like a clock twice a day. And if it is quit warm, then not even then. Farmers refer to ground temp as sod temperature. I can only suggest that you use a probe and leave it in the ground. You will see that ground temperatures and air temp seldome match. -
John Russell at 23:35 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
@Jeffery Davis Exactly! That's the argument to use. No point in getting bogged down in the detail of how the clock works when all we want to know is the time. -
John Russell at 23:31 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
@CB Dunkerson: I agree with every word of what you write. It's just that I think rebuttals should be robust as they will be nit-picked by those in denial. The essence of my comment is that the article uses thermal images to prove that the station and its surroundings are at the same temperature. I agree, they are. It then suggests that this means that the station is not being affected by the nearby heat source -- implying that if it was being affected by the heat source it should show as being warmer than its surroundings. If I have interpreted what the article says correctly then surely this is not logical in that -- assuming just for the sake of argument that there is a measurable raising of temperature -- the heat source would heat both the station and its surroundings equally. I'm suggesting that these thermal images should not be part of a robust rebuttal as they do not actually prove anything either way. Or have I misunderstood something? -
Jeffrey Davis at 23:12 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
No Urban Heat Island effect in space. Satellite studies show the same warming as surface stations. -
CBDunkerson at 22:38 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Ok, yes I agree that the impact will be 'equally not measurable' on both... but isn't the 'not measurable' the relevant bit for a temperature anomaly study? I gather that you are saying that the IR photographs showing that the environment and monitoring stations are at the same temperature does not prove that they haven't both been impacted by the heat source. Indeed, technically they both have been... just to such a small degree as to be meaningless for purposes of the study. However, the sharp contrast (i.e. bright yellow vs purple) between the heat sources and the environment / monitoring stations also demonstrates this lack of impact. Once the logic flaw in the claim 'near heat source means biased readings' is pointed out the 'common knowledge' factor kicks in and people realize that their own past experience is at odds with what Watts is claiming. -
MA Rodger at 22:30 PM on 4 November 2011Sorting out Settled Science from Remaining Uncertainties
I'm not sure why daisym @21 puts Prof William Happer at the top of the list of must-have scientists who disagree with AGW. There is a quality aspect to such lists (indeed they can be easily subject to discrediting) so why kick-off with Happer. Happer is a man I have a serious misgivings about. He is the man who, while discussing the Truth About Greenhouse Gases in a GWPF Policy Document (so not a place for ill-considered comments) describes the PETM, a time of mass extictions & stresses on species that resulted in, for instance, bats evolving: desctibed all this as "life thrived abundantly. He also asserts that "our ancestors" survived the Younger Dyras Event "just fine". Perhaps the same argument about ancestors would also work for the Black Death or World War 2. I would suggest that when listing scientists as evidence of legitimate scepticism, Happer is a name that would be best not seen at all, certainly never at the very top of the checklist. -
John Russell at 22:21 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
@CB Dunkerson: I agree. Please re-read what I said. The weather station and it's surroundings will both be influenced equally by any nearby heat source -- even if the influence is zero! We would therefore expect them both to be the same colour in a thermal imaging camera. So this observation does not invalidate the idea that the weather station is influenced by the nearby heat source -- even though, for the reasons you give, we know empirically that the influence will be not measurable. See what I mean? -
CBDunkerson at 22:07 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
John Russell, think about the amount of energy which would be required to change the temperature of the surrounding environment. Or better... just do a simple experiment at home; 1: Place a thermometer three feet from your stove 2: Record the current temperature 3: Turn one of the burners to its highest setting 4: Wait a bit for the burner to warm up 5: Compare the temperature to that recorded in step 2 I think you know, without even doing the experiment, that the temperature will not change. Yes, the burner is very hot and would show up as such on an IR image... but it is not going to change the temperature of the entire room by any measurable amount. This is even more true outdoors. I'm sure there have been scientific studies of this fact (probably a couple of hundred years ago), but it also falls into the category of 'common knowledge'. -
John Russell at 21:59 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Much as I think Watts and co have always been clutching at straws in their attempts to discredit temperature recordings, I do worry about this argument offered in rebuttal:"Rather than draw readers' attention to the hot spots, I would invite readers to compare the color (temperature) of the instrument housing with the color (temperature) of the general surroundings. In each case, the temperature station casing is - despite being near a source of heat - at the same temperature as the nearby land."
My gut reaction to that statement is; well, that's what one would expect, wouldn't one -- given that the weather station and its general surroundings are arguably both equally influenced by the nearby heat source in question? I'm not sure this is such a good argument and in the absence of any scientific study in support of its validity, I would suggest it's removed. As far as I'm concerned the 'BEST' and 'Fall et al' studies have demolished the 'station siting' myth and we should move on. -
MarkR at 21:28 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Stevo @9: If you changed the coating, then you would expect a 'jump' in temperatures. If all stations were coated at exactly the same time, then you might not pick it up. If one were coated and the nearby ones weren't, then the homogenisation procedure would work it out: 'what's this big jump? No-one near it has it, must be something else, let's go check and account for it'. -
ProfMandia at 21:06 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
I did something similar using Congressman Rohrabacher's 100 List of scientists: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/congressman-rohrbachers-paper-tiger/ On three occasions (Feb 4, 2010, March 10, 2010, and Feb 17, 2011), Rep. Rohrabacher has entered into the Congressional record an open letter signed by over 100 scientists and published as a full page ad in the New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, and Los Angeles Times. The letter was addressed to the President of the United States and flies in the face of the scientific understanding of climate change. The letter can be viewed here. The letter contained 115 signatures and made the following assertions: 1.The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated 2.Characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect 3.Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest 4.There has been no net global warming for over a decade 5.The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior The result: Only nine of these 115 (8%) have published recent research which give evidence that they have some expertise in at least one of areas 3, 4, or 5. NONE have expertise in all three of these areas. Worse, more than 2/3 of the signers have NO RECENT PAPERS related to climate yet they felt qualified to sign a letter addressed to the President of the United States to tell him he is wrong and the science is wrong - the arrogance! -
Fitz1309 at 21:03 PM on 4 November 2011CO2 measurements are suspect
Hi Philippe, thanks for those articles! I was interested to read that the air bubbles trapped in the ice represent the composition at the time of snow deposition. I would have thought there would be some movement of air upwards as the snow was compacting. Do you know of any articles that show the comparison of these readings of direct free air and shallow ice core? -
dorlomin at 20:59 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
The bottom photo, that paving ought to be much cooler than the grass surounding it at night. Its only really about human sources of heat like heating or air conditioning that will change the local temperature over 24 hours. -
lancelot at 19:48 PM on 4 November 2011Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study: “The effect of urban heating on the global trends is nearly negligible”
Tom Curtis 36. I have checked the solar irradiance trace from the IPCC graph. it looks correct. There are two green lines, one solid, one dashed. I have used the solid line. It has an upturn to 2000 which is much higher than the 1300 level. I am not sure what the dashed line means. The only inaccuracy I can see is the placing of the end of the line, 1950 on the IPCC graph, which could be squeezed in a fraction on my chart. PowerPoint is not the best tool to use for all this. In due course I plan to redraw it using a proper CAD programme. Meanwhile, if you can point me to any better solar irradiance records than the IPCC chart, I would be grateful. I will also use the Solanki data for solar activity. No agenda here, just would be good to correct any misleading graphics.Response:[DB] "No agenda here, just would be good to correct any misleading graphics."
When you say "misleading graphics" do you refer to that of the IPCC...or yours? FYI, "misleading" is a favorite toy of the fake-skeptic contingent, being used liberally like milk with cereal. As such, it is a term that can contravene the Comments Policy here, depending upon the context used.
-
lancelot at 19:25 PM on 4 November 2011Climate's changed before
Sphaericq, thanks for the gentle advice. I note that KR told me I was raising a Skeptical Argument , my caps. I suspect that is the touchy point. I have read nothing up on the PETM except Brian Lovells book. My question honestly came out of my own head, as an immediate reaction to the events as described, not off some website. But if the question, as I now suspect from KR's phrase, is a regularly used SA, I can see how KR would react to someone apparently churning out an old mantra. I do appreciate being given the benefit of the doubt. My purpose in using this forum (for which many thanks for allowing me) is to clarify my personal understanding. I entered here rating significant AGW as around 50% certain, now I would rate it as 80 to 95% certain. Lastly, I have seen criticism of some of my posts on the lines of , why dont you read up in depth on the subject before coming here with questions. Simple answer, I would love to, but life isn't long enough. That is why one asks the experts. -
Paul D at 18:46 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Regarding figure 4. It deserves a quote from the TV series Father Ted. "Now concentrate this time, Dougal. These are very small; those are far away..." Not quite the same context but the image is used to create a notion of conspiracy by using the lack of depth information to suggest the sensor appears to be closer to the electronics. -
Stevo at 17:43 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
chriskoz @12 Thanks for that. You pretty much summed up my thoughts on that one. -
chriskoz at 17:34 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
ptbrown31 @6 "We are the 97%" [...] Put that on a mug. What do you mean by this remark? And also can you please explain how it relates to the topic we are discussing here? Stevo @9 I'm in another filed just like you but I guess the average temp anomaly is not biased if the conditions and coatings of given stations stay the same: i.e. if the stations are "re-coated" at some point, then the same coat is used. Still, if they are re-coated randomly according to the taste of the owner. However if they were all gradually re-coated according to the "national fashion trend" or other universal criteria (say from bare wood through latex to whitewash), then those changes could introduce some bias. If I was Watts & trying to disprove the data I would look at this possibility. I wander if Watts (or any other 'sceptic') considered it he is content with just weak allegations... -
barry1487 at 17:29 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
"A study using Watts' own data - Menne 2010 - found that station exposure does not play an obvious role in temperature trends, the same conclusion reached by a team including Watts in a later paper, Fall et al 2011."
I don't think that accurately characterizes Fall et al, which does find bias in min/max temperatures but not average temperatures. IIRC, the authors state that while average temps appear to be robust, this may be a chance circumstance of min/max biases cancelling each other out. I'd quote chapter and verse, but the link to the pdf is broken for me - you should check it. And I'd like to re-read. -
skywatcher at 16:58 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Before mention of Watts' qualifications descend into ad-hom, I would add that the best Watts can be described as is an amateur meteorologist. An amateur has the potential to make significant contributions to a field - in astronomy this happens all the time, but it requires exquisite care and dedication to fully understand the field you are dabbling in, and to understand where and how you can make a contribution. Some easy examples: Faint fuzzy not on the sky chart? Comet! But is it moving, and has it already been recorded? Variable star! What observations exist, and what are the existing explanations for its behaviour? Can you and your equipment accurately record the variations? Supernova! Or is it an asteroid or existing star in front of that galaxy? Those with no astronomical/astrophysical qualifications can make valuable discoveries and observations, but they will not make those discoveries by casually looking through their telescope while ignoring the literature and existing understanding on what it is you are observing. Many UFO sightings stand testament to people making a fuss about something in the sky before they understand all the processes/events that may provide a mundane explanation. Watts fails even the dedicated amateur status on several fronts, some of which are in the article above, another is include approaching the problem with a clearly desired conclusion in mind, hence why I would not easily see him as a meteorologist. -
adelady at 16:45 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Alan E "let's see a similar database for leading climate scientists who support the AGW hypothesis." If you have a look at the Interactive History tab on the top left you'll see that this is a major project just for the latest year. Let alone all years. -
Stevo at 16:34 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
To make sure I'm understanding all of this article properly, with regard to the differring properties of coating on Stevenson Screens. Aren't the different coatings irrelevant since we should be using the temperature anomoly rather than the absolute temperature? Like Watts I am not a climate scientist so I'd appreciate some guidance as to whether I'm grasping this properly. Unlike Watts I do hold tertiary qualifications, albeit in another field. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist) -
Mark Harrigan at 16:07 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Jim - you've done a great job - and I understand what you are saying about E&E (though i still think they are highly specious as a source of good science) - but, if you have the time, it might be worth looking at the citation index for each journal in which the "skeptic" papers are publsihed and compare that to the relevant citation index for mainstream climate science. I suspect I know what the answer would be. As I am sure you know one "measure" of the worth of a paper is how many citations it has scored. Just a suggestion. -
dhogaza at 15:45 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
skywatcher: "I note that Watts is described as a 'meteorologist'. According to Sourcewatch, he holds no higher degrees or qualifications in the field of meteorology" Nor lower degrees, he dropped out of university after two or three years and never graduated. So, technically, he's a high-school graduate ... -
Alan E at 15:22 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Another thought ... let's see a similar database for leading climate scientists who support the AGW hypothesis. Notwithstanding the obvious arguments around bias against skeptic scientists by journals and research funders, it would be interesting to see the comparative level of contribution to the body of knowledge. Ta, Alan -
Alan E at 15:17 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Jim ... this window into the body of knowledge produced by dissenters of the AGW hypothesis is sorely needed ... thanks for working on it. A couple of thoughts: * I think the citations are important ... both the absolute number but also who cited it; down the track it may be possible to show what % of the citations were by later skeptic papers (in your focus population) i.e. to gauge whether the paper influenced other than other skeptics; although to gauge that reliably it would be necessary to assess whether the citation by a non-skeptic paper was a debunk or otherwise. * many of the authors haven't published in years and years; I'd like to see a simple indicator of "last published"; some of these authors haven't dissented in years ... are they still doing research? * I'd also like to see an indication of the papers that resulted from actual field research and analysis ... not meta studies or desk reviews of data sets produced by another research project; too many skeptic contributions are from people who do not have the deep understanding of the natural processes which 'real' climate scientists gain from many years effort Thanks, Alan -
Philippe Chantreau at 15:03 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
THese IR pics are very interesting indeed. Watts' site premise for existence has been invalidated by every data study ever intended to verify it: from the early work of John V, to Menne, to Fall. Now it turns out that his premise even lacks a physical basis. -
ptbrown31 at 13:52 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
"We are the 97%" - AGW accepting scientists. Put that on a mug. -
Michael Hauber at 13:46 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Should MM 2005 be included? It doesn't actually say anything about Co2 or global warming, but rather states that a particular reconstruction of the past temperature is not statistically significant. -
skywatcher at 13:07 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
I note that Watts is described as a 'meteorologist'. According to Sourcewatch, he holds no higher degrees or qualifications in the field of meteorology, though he has been a TV and radio weatherman for many years. Of course anyone can do science provided they do it competently and read / comprehend the work of those before, but I wouldn't want people to confuse Anthony Watts with other professional meteorologists. His inability to understand the collection and processing of meteorological data, as shown by Patrick's excellent article and in many places elsewhere, is clear for all to see. -
citizenschallenge at 12:30 PM on 4 November 2011Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 1
Jim Powell, WOW, what a great project ! ! Excellent, thank you, it will make a great resource. I'm looking forward to watching it develop and grow. -
Andy Skuce at 12:15 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
oneiota: Here's a link for the Fall et al paper that should work -
oneiota at 12:01 PM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
Thanks for this. (I noticed that the link to the "Fall et al 2011" draws a blank at Word Press) -
rab at 11:40 AM on 4 November 2011Watts, Surface Stations and BEST
This is lovely. As far as I'm concerned, this is the key quote: "Rather than draw readers' attention to the hot spots, I would invite readers to compare the color (temperature) of the instrument housing with the color (temperature) of the general surroundings. In each case, the temperature station casing is - despite being near a source of heat - at the same temperature as the nearby land." So Watts' biases can be demonstrated using his own photos. -
Bob Lacatena at 11:26 AM on 4 November 2011Climate's changed before
280, lancelot, This isn't a normal venue. In a classroom, or a party, or at lunch, when you do as you describe you are right. But in climate change there are a large number of very, very arrogant, angry and ignorant people. They waltz in here with personal theories based on a gross misunderstanding of the science, stating everything from proof that the globe hasn't warmed to the idea that GHG theory violates the laws of thermodynamics and more. One (-self-snip-) even claims that he's proven that current warming is coming from the interior of the earth. Most people who comment here but do not already understand the science are not here to learn, or asking reasonable questions and looking for answers (as I presume you are). Most people who comment here but do not already understand the science instead have an axe to grind, and believe that they have all of the real answers, and that they'll show those dang, silly scientists a thing or two about logix and clear-headed thanking. Hence... a perfectly ordinary sounding question is likely to touch some nerves with people who have already been rubbed raw with what could, at best, be called a parade utter and complete nonsense. Hence, a sensitivity to such a response is advised. You might not want to go to the trouble to carefully word your questions, but you might give someone like KR a break when they presume that you are possibly asking these questions with a hidden agenda, hoping to trip people up or to sow doubt. At the same time... people here at SkS probably should back off and give newcomers a little more slack before flipping out on them.Response:[DB] "At the same time... people here at SkS probably should back off and give newcomers a little more slack before flipping out on them."
Agreed. Give the benefit of the doubt, with the action mentioned after the word "before" in your back pocket.
Prev 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 Next
