Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2218  2219  2220  2221  2222  2223  2224  2225  2226  2227  2228  2229  2230  2231  2232  2233  Next

Comments 111251 to 111300:

  1. Berényi Péter at 08:28 AM on 1 September 2010
    Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    There was already a long intermittent discussion of UHI here. Follow the thread.
  2. It's microsite influences
    For what it's worth, Watts put his three different boxes closer to each other than I would have, and put the newer paint spec one in the middle. That puts the one he expects to find higher temperatures in between two, too-close, bodies that both reflect SW and radiate LW. I can't predict what difference that made, but for someone really concerned about siting of instruments, he introduces his own siting problems.
  3. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Omnologos @13 - "The warming signal is so significant it shows up in both good and bad sites" is not an answer" And yet the warming shows up in both good and bad/poor sites, how do you explain that?. You might consider that some deep dark mystery, however......... Oh, and you do realize that if the data from the bad/poor sites is discarded (which seems to be the skeptic solution to everything they find inconvenient) then the US record will be adjusted upwards?. Given that science seems to take a back seat to your world view, is that really what you want?.
  4. It's microsite influences
    psilax, Re. #2, a good question. I looked up the Menne article and the Watts 2009 article to which it is a response. Watts suggests two driving causes for the upward bias of temperatures: The change in paint spec in 1979 and the introduction of the new type of thermometers in the 1980s. I suspect that Menne, et al, restricted their period of reporting to that which Watts was concerned about.
  5. Klaus Flemløse at 07:09 AM on 1 September 2010
    Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    Please note form IPPC TAR: "These results confirm the conclusions of Jones et al. (1990) and Easterling et al. (1997) that urban effects on 20th century globally and hemispherically averaged land air temperature time-series do not exceed about 0.05°C over the period 1900 to 1990 (assumed here to represent one standard error in the assessed non-urban trends). However, greater urbanisation influences in future cannot be discounted." http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm To me it looks like we can't exclude UHI effect in the future. This is an important point.
  6. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    JohnD, you really ought to read the paper I've referred to twice above. I won't bother supplying the link again, look for "closing the sea level budget."
  7. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    Dappledwater at 22:34 PM, there are a couple of points in the quote you posted that are interesting. Firstly the reference to eustatic sea-level, which is a notional world-wide average and what is generally referred to by the IPCC and others. This is different to the local relative sea-level (LRSL), which correspond to changes in actual sea-levels at real and particular coastal locations. Can you elaborate as to the reasons why 0.3mm per year must be added to the Australian records and how this adjustment was arrived at as it appears very relevant to the discussion. The other point is the comment about the affect ENSO events have on sea level rise. This effect has to be taken into account with such events following much longer decadel cycles such as the PDO and other similar ocean based cycles that operate in all the oceans. However I am not sure whether the comment about the trend to more frequent, persistent and intense ENSO events since the mid-1970s is entirely correct. That period was almost evenly divided in the number of declared ENSO events with the first half seeing the SOI generally more positive and generally more negative in the second half. If that was the "trend" he was referring to then as a negative SOI is associated with El-Nino that would tend to indicate that if global warming also brings more frequent El-Nino events then that should result in a continually reduced trend if what you posted is correct.
  8. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    HR, The scientists who generated the data say 3.3 is more than 1.8. Are you more qualified to interpret the data? Ned pointed out before that 3.3 is a global value and the data for the south pacific is greater than the global average. Since the rise is different at different locations, we would not expect all the points to be the same. On the other hand, we expect the Global data to stay the same. You have to keep all the data in context. A global 1.8 changing to 3.3 is acceleration. 5.4 in one island in the south pacific does compare well to 3.3 globally. Pay attention to what you are comparing.
  9. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    BP Cite your source. here Dr. Hanson gives data that shows the UHI effect is small. Your claim of .2-.3 per doubling is in need of data. Dr. Hanson shows that ignoring the UHI effect does not alter the data analysis. Your claims recently have not been at the level you used to have. Maybe you need to review your assessments of the data.
  10. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Yes, Phila, one might say it's more waste heat. Heat, but no more light.
  11. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    #37 I strongly suspect we have all made our points, sometimes more than once, and could continue for weeks. I strongly suspect that of the people who made their points here, exactly one of them was consistently wrong.
  12. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    As I recall, having looked at some of the "logarithmic population vs. temperature change" articles on WUWT, it was shown that all of the regions showed a similar temperature change. If the temperature trend was caused by UHI/population growth, it's necessary to show that in areas without population growth the trend is not present. I have seen no data to support this. As it stands the data indicates that (a) temperature trends have gone up, and (b) the world population has gone up. There is as yet no demonstration I'm aware of that temperatures have not gone up where the population has not gone up, which would be a minimal criteria for a cause-effect relationship. Correlation is not causation, as demonstrated here. Add to this the fact that the satellite temperature records have independently shown the same temperature trends, as Ned points out, and evidence for a UHI/population influence on temperature trends is awfully weak. Temperature trends appear to be independent of any UHI effects.
  13. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    BP writes: It is about 0.2-0.3°C per doubling of local population density for a very wide range of initial population densities [...] global population has doubled twice since the beginning of the last century (therefore about 0.4-0.6°C of the global trend is due to UHI) I'm curious how this unique and unsourced analysis takes into account the 70% of the planet covered by ocean. Are the lower troposphere and sea-surface temperature trends also affected by UHI? It seems improbable given the lack of pavement in the middle of the Pacific, not to mention at the 600 km altitude of Aqua/AMSU.
  14. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    #3, BP, do you have any actual research to cite, or do you just make this stuff up?
  15. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    "But as UHI is proportional to the logarithm of local population density, it is no wonder its effect on trend is not smaller for low population density areas. In fact it is expected to be a bit stronger there, because much smaller absolute numbers are needed to increase population density twofold." I fail to see how rural stations are affected by this. For the UHI to be noticeable, the immediate surroundings of a station have to be affected. Many rural stations are in areas where there has been little development, and I have yet to read a convincing argument that modest rural development (such as what we have seen in the last 50 years) could have an impact that would skew the temperature records. Do you have credible studies that support your various affirmations?
  16. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    I must remember to wait for 24 hours after reading omnologos' posts before getting my blood pressure measured. Anti-science rantings such as his put my blood pressure up by way too many points.
  17. Hockey stick is broken
    McShane and Wyner's paper was tossed into the ring of public contention prior to being graced with the full benefit of review. Presumably this was voluntary on the authors' part, or let's hope so. DeepClimate has a lengthy post delving into various features of M&W, and as well there's a robust discussion in the comments there for folks who'd like to get caught up one way or another. DC is not the only outfit to notice the strangely situated political freight loaded onto the M&W train of thought.
  18. Hockey stick is broken
    Deep Climate has done a detailed analysis of the McShane and Wyner paper.
  19. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    38.Ned If +5.4 mm/year or +4.9 mm/year compare well with +3.3 mm/year then how different is 1.8mm/year (overall 20thC) from 3.3mm/year (past twenty years)? We seem to be arguing this second difference is significant but it doesn't look so different from a couple of numbers you say "compare very well".
  20. Temp record is unreliable
    The answer might be no. A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE? McShane and Wyner. Submitted to the Annals of Applied Statistics One of the conclusions:

    ...we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data.

    In other words, there might have been other sharp run-ups in temperature, but the proxies can't show them. The hockey stick handle may be crooked, but the proxies can't show it one way or the other.
    Moderator Response: Not the same topic. Try this thread for a better place to discuss McShane and Wyner:
    Is the hockey stick broken?
  21. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    but... but... I was sure if you dropped urban stations there would be an obvious decline in global temperatures! (just kidding)
  22. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Just to clarify: we are talking about USHCN criteria, not mines. Seemingly I have started off something 'round here. Since I find it less than kind to hijack somebody else's blog with a salvo of comments, apologies to all but I'll suspend things here, and perhaps post a note or two later today, plus something in my own blog. I strongly suspect we have all made our points, sometimes more than once, and could continue for weeks. That's part of the good/bad nature of the 'net. Thank you all, and to John Cook and the other authors, for the intellectual challenge.
  23. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    22.Dappledwater It's not just the Wenzel paper that shows no acceleration. It looks like the 18 satellite data doesn't show one. So you're saying the acceleration occured around 1950 and since then things have been moving at a steady rate? That's what I see from the figures you show. But the most prominant temperature rises and land ice melt have occured post 1970 and post 2000. It doesn't seem to fit. I don't think land/sea temp is as relevant as OHC. Try this old, white, male deniers presentation of the NODC data on OHC. Shouldn't we be seeing acceleration in teh 18 year satellite data?
    Moderator Response: The topic of ocean heat content is better explored on an appropriate thread. A robust discussion may be found here:

    Robust warming of the global upper ocean
  24. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Hi again omnilogos "My example is about going to see 100 doctors, _all_ making mistakes in measuring your blood pressure." Right, your example is about absolute accuracy. In this case, the right example would be going to see these 100 doctors every day for 30 years, and the doctors all make consistent errors in measuring your blood pressure. At the end maybe you would not know your absolute blood pressure, but you would certainly be able to tell how it had gone up or down over the years. You would know a lot about the trend. You CAN get useful trend information from imperfect data, and that is the point of the Menne paper.
  25. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    omnologos, all your doctors' blood pressure readings of you are "wrong" by your criteria! You will never be able to find a doctor meeting your criteria, because there is no such doctor! If you research the definition of "blood pressure," you will discover that the concept is useless without an operationalization. Then you will be dismayed to discover that there are in fact a bunch of operational definitions, involving the patient sitting, lying, standing; the instrument being on the wrist or arm or other body part or even inserted in a blood vessel; the instrument being a microphone or a health care provider's ears in a stethoscope or a direct pressure sensor; and even the strength of the sound that marks the trigger for the measurement has multiple values. Have you ever noticed that none of your doctors has ever been consistent in demanding your posture be precisely "correct" for precisely one of the many requisite durations before measuring your blood pressure, let alone insisting that you be at the doctor's office at precisely the same time of day?
  26. Klaus Flemløse at 02:14 AM on 1 September 2010
    Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    As I recall, IPPC states: In the past warming from UHI is insignifikant. In the future it may be signifikant. Please consider to included this in writing about UHI.
  27. Berényi Péter at 02:14 AM on 1 September 2010
    Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    #1 RSVP at 00:10 AM on 1 September, 2010 "...results in a slightly warmer envelope of air over urbanised areas when compared to surrounding rural areas.." Why not express this in degrees centrigrade? It is about 0.2-0.3°C per doubling of local population density for a very wide range of initial population densities. This rule also works for sites considered "rural", although the exact value of the coefficient should depend on level of economic development as well. This is the reason behind similar trends in urban vs. rural sites. That is, even if scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends, they could only make sure the influence was about the same over all kinds of sites. Population density distribution is always fractal-like and population on average grows by the same percentage everywhere. The net result is "urbanization", when ever higher proportion of the population lives in really densely populated areas. But as UHI is proportional to the logarithm of local population density, it is no wonder its effect on trend is not smaller for low population density areas. In fact it is expected to be a bit stronger there, because much smaller absolute numbers are needed to increase population density twofold. The only correct check for the actual magnitude of the temporal UHI effect is to calculate temperature trends for sites where local population density has decreased for an extended period and compare them to the rest. Of course it is not easy to find such regions, because global population has doubled twice since the beginning of the last century (therefore about 0.4-0.6°C of the global trend is due to UHI). However, the quest is not impossible. For example several regions of the US experienced multi-decadal population decrease (southern West Virginia, Northern Maine, many regions of the mid-west). There are also excellent census data in the US, so it is pretty easy to locate such regions. Basically one should choose all the counties where population has decreased for the last thirty years, with a decreasing population in all the neighboring counties as well and which have climatic data for the entire period (something like Beckley city, Raleigh County, West Virginia). That's the job to be done for scientists, provided of course there are some who really want to be careful.
  28. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    It is ironic that omnologos cites Galileo who I would posit never made 'accurate' measurements. He had no timepiece, his compass was probably only accurate to a degree, his lenses were imperfectly ground etc, but his contribution to science is immeasureable.
  29. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    omnologos wrote : "If a doctor doesn't use the diagnostic instruments properly, I go to a doctor that does, don't you?" How do you know when you've found a doctor that uses that instrument properly ? What do you judge the result against ? For me, if a doctor didn't use the instrument properly (but I didn't know - I was suspicious because I got a result I didn't like) and gave me bad news, I would go to another. If the next one told me the same bad news, do I suspect that he/she doesn't know what he/she is doing too, or do I face up to reality ?
  30. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Hi omnologos, You aren't making a distinction between absolute measurements and trends, and this is something many people overlook. Although on any given day a perfect measurement is great to have, it is not required for trend analysis. If every measurement is off by 100 degrees, every day, over the entire record, then this 100 degree offset does not matter for the trend analysis. It was present at the beginning and at the end, so it does not affect the trend. The graph shows the "Anomaly" which is the difference from a reference point. (Notice that the scale is near zero.) Absolute measurement errors that are present throughout the record don't make it into the anomaly. You mention "poor data" but the point of the Menne study was to show that "poorly sited" stations still provide useful data for trend analysis. "Poorly sited" does not mean "poor data" when it comes to trends.
  31. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    I don't think you'll be able to find a doctor you're comfortable with, omnologos. How many have you visited? Have you compared readings? How can you tell if the readings are correct?
  32. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    So... when confronted with three matching data sets; A, B, and A+B which all show virtually identical results your conclusion is that they must all be wrong? Because some guy with a blog found that set B don't meet a list of criteria which were established for measuring something other (absolute temperatures) than the data sets are looking at (relative temperature changes). When we then add in matching anomaly readings from weather balloons does that mean those are ALSO wrong? The matching satellite temperature record? Thrown off by urban heat islands in space? The various matching proxy temperature sets? Has EVERY temperature reading in the history of the world been wrong? Or are you being ridiculous?
  33. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Omnologos - I stand by my statements regarding accuracy and precision. If your doctors instruments are poorly calibrated they will be inaccurate (offsets from ground truth). If, however, they are precise, they will give the same readings over time. The various issues raised about temperature collection seem to all be about accuracy - arguing that there are offsets for individual instruments due to siting. But these issues have nothing to do with precision, which is driven by consistent use of an instrument, maintaining correct offsets when changing thermometers, changing the time of day for recording values, or moving an instrument - those are all procedural issues, and the only complaints I've seen on those is "It's complicated!" from a couple of posters. Trend analysis only requires precision.
  34. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Omnologos, Scientists HAVE analized the data very carefully over decades and they say that there is a trend in temperature. If you want to claim that "it's because there is something else affecting the measurements, and maybe there is no trend" then you need to suggest what that something might be. Otherwise you are just saying "I doubt it" and you have no argument. What do you suggest is causing this trend, in the good and the bad stations, that is not AGW? It needs to explain glacier retreat, seasons changing, sea level rise also. I look forward to your explaination.
  35. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    @KR: "This actually gets at the difference between accuracy and precision". No. My example is not about accuracy and precision. My example is about going to see 100 doctors, _all_ making mistakes in measuring your blood pressure. If a doctor doesn't use the diagnostic instruments properly, I go to a doctor that does, don't you?
  36. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    @michael sweet: "You will see that the 'good' data give the same result as the 'bad' data". And that _is_ the problem. The answer could either be (a) "it's because 'good' and 'bad' don't have a meaning in matters of trends" (the most popular take, around here). Or (b) "it's because there is something else affecting the measurements, and maybe there is no trend". It's up to science to figure out which is which. If instead we assume it's (a), then it's an assumption, not a finding. And it's not science. If well-constructed clocks drift just as much as poorly-constructed clocks, we can all assume time is dilating, or try to understand what is actually happening.
  37. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Omnologos - Given your doctor example here, if you've visited 100 doctors and received varying results for blood pressure, that means that the accuracy of the various instruments vary a lot. Perhaps some of the are better at calibrating their instruments than others? If you then visit the same 100 doctors a year later, using the same instruments, and see that on all of them your blood pressure is 20 points higher than it was the year before, a trend change - are you going to throw out that trend change because of the accuracy issue? Or are you going to get a prescription for a blood pressure lowering medicine? This actually gets at the difference between accuracy and precision. The adjustments guidelines are intended to maintain both accuracy (calibrate correct offsets for site conditions) and precision (when changing thermometers, adjust for instrument differences). Trend analysis only requires precision and sufficient data, not accuracy for each instrument.
  38. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Forecasters: "The barometer on station X seems to be off by about 100mb, but it is still trending downward, in line with the other three stations. Observers also report increasing wind and wave activity. Our models indicate a 90% chance that a major hurricane will make landfall here tonight." Omnologos: "Right, whatever! One out of four stations is totally off! That's significant error! 90%? Not good enough! I believe I'll be partying on the beach tonight. Bloody alarmists."
  39. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Omnologos: Check out the graph at the top of this post. You will see that the "good" data give the same result as the "bad" data. Deniers like Watts would have us throw out the entire data collection, "bad" and "good", because of the issues you are raising. Scientists have corrected the "bad" data as much as possible. The graph here shows that it is not necessary to correct the "bad" data-- they are the same uncorrected! Looking at the graph in the post I have to ask "what is Omnologos concerned about?" What in this graph makes you doubt the reliability of the temperature record? No data is perfect. We do the best we can with the data we have.
  40. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Nice attempt at circularity there, omnologos. Let's express it a different way: You're wrong, so why does Jim have to post this blog at all? The answer is that folks like you will continue bashing away with your failed argument about how absolute accuracy in temperature measurements is necessary to identify a trend in temperature and its proportional relevance. This is basically the same pointless distraction as asking "if we can't predict weather, how can we predict climate?" For reasons we cannot know, maintaining confusion here is terribly important to you, enough so that you'll ignore everything you're told regarding the matter. Using your example, if you visit 100 doctors with sphygmomanometers and all of those show similarly high readings, what's the main concern? Will you worry over the absolute accuracy of all of those instruments, or should you instead be motivated to explore whether you may have a pathology causing your blood pressure to rise? You'll choose risking a stroke, for some reason. Personally, I find it ironic to discover how people worried about temperatures trending upwards show no interest whatsoever in getting those trends right (in a scientific sense). Really? How extraordinarily obdurate. Here's a summary of things of which you're probably already aware, but you can still say people are not interested in getting it right?
  41. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    @michael sweet: "what should we do with data that is not perfect". I am sure it is not news to you that no data is perfect. Some data, however, are (much) better than others. If "good" data show a trend, then "good data show a trend", and "poor" stations should be transformed into "good ones" at once, to contribute to the analysis of the trend. If somebody wants to use "poor data", they should therefore show how the "poor data" can be transformed into "good data". Unless that is done, there is as little meaning in using "poor data" to understand warming trends as in issuing speeding tickets with the use of an incorrectly-placed traffic enforcement camera. No court of law would allow those tickets, no scientist should concern about the "poorly sited" data.
  42. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    omnilogos #19, you just really can't understand can you? "I find it ironic to discover how people worried about temperatures trending upwards show no interest whatsoever in getting those trends right" No. False statement. Everyone here is absolutely interested in getting the temperature trends right. You just can't seem to understand that your objection about thermometer citing is irrelevant to that issue. Here, try a simple thought experiment. Let's say in your yard you put a thermometer out on the black asphalt driveway under direct sunlight and another one in the most heavily shaded area you can find. Two thermometers less than a hundred feet apart, but they are going to show significantly different ABSOLUTE temperatures. Which is 'right'? Both of them are correct for the location they are in. Neither would meet the 'station siting guidelines'. Yet both are perfectly valid for measuring TRENDS. As the day gets hotter BOTH thermometers will register higher temperatures. The absolute temperature readings will differ, the trends over time will not.
  43. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    @doug_bostrom: if you were right, then there would have been no point in Jim Meador posting this blog at all. Personally, I find it ironic to discover how people worried about temperatures trending upwards show no interest whatsoever in getting those trends right (in a scientific sense). Imaging going to see the doctor if your concern is blood pressure, only to accept the diagnosis even if the sphygmomanometer has been obviously used incorrectly. Worse: imagine going to see 100 doctors, all making mistakes in measuring your blood pressure, only to conclude there must be something wrong because they all said so. Sanity means discarding the opinion of poorly-trained doctors. All of them. Actually, the entire "body" of modern science is based on maths, therefore on numbers, therefore on measurements. Hence, incorrect measurements can only lead to incorrect science. A "poorly sited" station is a serious issue, and the untold number of hours spent by Galileo in getting his measurements right were not a waste of time. Once again: maybe the USHCN guidelines don't matter, regarding warming trends. I am not excluding that possibility. All I am stating is that somebody should show that _that_ is the case. If it is instead considered as an assumption _because of_ the trends, we are in the realm of circular reasoning.
  44. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Another issue relating to Omnilogos questions is what should we do with data that is not perfect? Obtaining 100 years of temperature data is an immense amount of time and effort. Deniers would have us discard all this data because it might have some small flaws. Scientists generally try to correct the record and/or make the best use that they can of the existing data. It makes no sense to throw data away when it can be corrected. As this example shows, the "bad" data replicates the "good" data.
  45. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    Absolutely pointless to say it, but a thermometer does not have to produce an absolute, accurate or precise reading in degrees anything to identify a trend. We have a vast network of thermometers we can view for this purpose without referring to units at all. This network indicates an upward trend in temperature. This is not very complicated, really. The same network used to produce absolute temperature indications can be exploited for a different purpose, to identify a trend. The trend application benefits in some ways from being expressed in units but actually only needs to be assessed from the perspective of proportionality to derive a useful conclusion. Perhaps the solution is to avoid referring to these instruments as thermometers in this context so as to avoid igniting neurotic obsessions. How about "bulk caloric trend indicator?" But, as I say, pointless to mention it down here. Fortunately normal people who are simply looking for a simple explanation of what's going on the world will not make their way down here into the deep dark, where omnologos is prattling away about guidelines.
  46. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    omnologos #15, they have this little handbook which says, 'for best results place your thermometer in an area like this'. Watts decided those were 'guidelines' or 'criteria' and any site which did not meet all of them was 'bad'. All of which is completely irrelevant as those instructions were meant to limit any sort of error in ABSOLUTE temperature measurements... whereas the global anomaly values are based on RELATIVE change in measurements over time... which aren't impacted by most of the siting issues Watts (and now apparently you) obsessed about... as subsequent studies have proved repeatedly.
  47. The surprising result when you compare bad weather stations to good stations
    @Tom Dayton: I was quoting @Dappledwater. In fact, I used quotes 8-) and prefer "poor" to "bad" anyway. Let's go back to the root of the problem here: what are those guidelines about if we are to take on "poorly sited" measurement systems in a cavalier manner?
  48. Climate's changed before
    bobconsole, actually many of the 'think tanks' (i.e. propaganda units) disputing global warming also insisted that cigarettes do NOT cause lung cancer. Go figure.
  49. Sea level rise: the broader picture
    Is the article wrong, or did you unconsciously inflate it because you thought that it had to fit the ballpark figure you had in your mind. Is this a case where failing to focus on tiny portions of data might lead to false conclusions? "Focus on tiny portions of data." Too funny in light of more recent posts. I'm flabbergasted that folks are able to view a graph such as the Church display in the "basic" article above and end up rattling down a funnel of perspective to become entirely obsessed with a single tide gauge or a particular region of the world. You and Miekol could inoculate yourselves from appearing so stubbornly myopic by actually reading things such as the paper I cited for Peter, above: Closing the sea level rise budget with altimetry, Argo, and GRACE Instead, chanting over a web page from the Queensland maritime safety agency works better for maintaining ignorance. You really, really do -not- want to see the large picture, it seems. Sorry, JohnD, I've got a major bout of sciatica going on, I'm on Torquemada's rack right now. I goofed my decimal points. Gasp! I'ts a plot! Doug Bostrom is controlling a global network of oceanographers but has been exposed when he flubbed a coverup! Congratulations, and thanks especially for helping to illustrate a case example of what I was referring to above, the synthesis of misleading and pointless distractions. Beyond helping.
  50. Urban Heat Islands: serious problem or holiday destination for skeptics?
    RSVP, presumably because it varies, this is a 'basic' writeup, and the urban - rural anomaly is completely irrelevant? As the article explains, absolute temperature of any given location doesn't impact anomaly readings... we are looking at the change in temperature over time, and that is consistent between urban and rural locations. You might as well ask why not list the difference in temperature between Nome and Miami? Because that is no more irrelevant than the urban vs rural difference you ask for.

Prev  2218  2219  2220  2221  2222  2223  2224  2225  2226  2227  2228  2229  2230  2231  2232  2233  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us