the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

A Grand Experiment

Posted by Jeff Id on April 27, 2009

sunspots_max_min_big.jpg Sunspots image by dantless

If you didn’t know yet, the sun isn’t making any spots. David Hathaway, now famous among skeptics for correcting his own solar cycle predictions so often that the only accurate prediction is that the prediction will be corrected. Seriously though the sun isn’t following it’s consensus ordained pattern, almost like it doesn’t care what we humans say.

“This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway.

The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas.

What’s most interesting about this situation is the temperature variation we’re seeing globally. Temps have basically stopped rising since the beginning of this century. This does not mean AGW has stopped but it may explain why we aren’t seeing the rise. What an extended event would do is give us an opportunity to judge the effect the sun has on long term warming of the Earth.

In climatology, the variance of solar output is considered too small to explain the warming trends measured. Of course those of us who have looked at how temps are measured know one thing, humans don’t know what the temperature was even 50 years ago to a high degree of accuracy. There are far too many instrument biases in ground measurements and the satellite measures and radiosonde (weather ballons) over the years suffer from their own inaccuracies as well so in my opinion it’s hard to claim the sun can’t explain it all. Perhaps a qualifier such as all the variation in the NOAA data would make me happier. The temperature rise is likely less than government temperature organizations report because of the large incompletely justified positive slope corrections added to the temp data scientists who do a horrendously and unacceptably bad job sorting and correcting instruments.

Computer models suggest that of the 0.5C increase in global average temperatures over the past 30 years, only 10-20 per cent of the temperature variations observed were down to the Sun, although some said it was 50 per cent.

It’s interesting to me that we can have such a consensus yet not actually know this simple detail, how much does the solar variance affect the earth. Model variation between 10 and 50 percent is pretty high.

This is the scary bit though.

Sunspots are dark, cooler patches on the Sun’s surface that come and go in a roughly 11-year cycle, first noticed in 1843. They have gone away before. They were absent in the 17th century – a period called the “Maunder Minimum” after the scientist who spotted it. Crucially, it has been observed that the periods when the Sun’s activity is high and low are related to warm and cool climatic periods. The weak Sun in the 17th century coincided with the so-called Little Ice Age. The Sun took a dip between 1790 and 1830 and the earth also cooled a little. It was weak during the cold Iron Age, and active during the warm Bronze Age. Recent research suggests that in the past 12,000 years there have been 27 grand minima and 19 grand maxima.

Throughout the 20th century the Sun was unusually active, peaking in the 1950s and the late 1980s. Dean Pensell of NASA, says that, “since the Space Age began in the 1950s, solar activity has been generally high. Five of the ten most intense solar cycles on record have occurred in the last 50 years.” The Sun became increasingly active at the same time that the Earth warmed. But according to the scientific consensus, the Sun has had only a minor recent effect on climate change.

If the earth cools suddenly at the same time we’re cutting back on our fuel sources, you can bet there will be a few red faced politicians sitting on their brand new cap and trade money redistribution scam, it will be one more disaster to befall our already stretched to the breaking point global economy.

Imagine the world wide strife a little ice age will inflict when it returns (as it inevitably will). We’ll be sitting here with no nuke plants to keep us warm, an aged and near defunked petrochemical industry taxed to the brink and frost bitten crops which are far less mobile than tree lines or flocks of migrating birds. In that situation, one certainty is that everything will be in line with updated computer models showing global warming underlying a strong cooling signal and politicians who claim to have warned us so the ignorant brainwashed masses will vote for them.

Since it will be hard to blame humans for the solar cooldown, there won’t be a UN organization committed to making money from it. I wonder how it will play out with no government push to take control and make money. What will they teach in liberal Environmental Governance classes to further brainwash our youth as to the glorious benefits of increased governance? Will they push for increased fossil fuel burning to warm the earth?

I find it amazing that we don’t often hear 5 of the 10 most active cycles on record happened in the last 50 years. Combine that with the known correlation between Dalton and Maunder minima’s to cold temps which we know simply due to the anecdotal evidence, not by inaccurate measurements or false temperature proxies. There has to be a bit of common sense here rather than complete reliance on computer models, everyone knows sometimes sensibility is lost in statistics. It seems possible to me we are on the brink of a grand experiment/demonstration by the sun god. I for one am in favor of it, consider if the Earth cools massively due to the increased complex interactions of cosmic rays with the earth atmosphere. Consider again what it means if it doesn’t. We could be settling this obviously overblown and politicized issue in the next decade. If the cool down isn’t too severe, we will have an opportunity to excise a bit of the political cancer invading our US government.

If the climate models are even close and the sun is creating the divergence between measured temps and models, our exit from this solar minima (which also will inevitably occur) could result in a large rapid spike upward in temps like we’ve never recorded before. Imagine how that would affect your own opinion on AGW.

A link to the interesting article from which the above comments were quoted.

The missing sunspots: Is this the big chill?

May you live in interesting times.


58 Responses to “A Grand Experiment”

  1. TCO said

    “David Hathaway, now famous among skeptics for correcting his own solar cycle predictions so often that the only accurate prediction is that the prediction will be corrected. ”

    This is not a sentence.

  2. TCO said

    “What’s most interesting about this situation is the temperature variation we’re seeing globally. Temps have basically stopped rising since the beginning of this century.”

    I think you mean recently, not globally. The first sentence implies what is of interest is variation from spot to spot around the globe.

    “What an extended event would do is give us an opportunity to judge the effect the sun has on long term warming of the Earth.”

    How? The rest of your blog post does not explain that.

  3. TCO said

    “Of course those of us who have looked at how temps are measured know one thing”

    1. With those of us, are you implying that you are a real scholar/scientist here? Better to say, the skeptics (or amateurs) who have looked at…blabla…

    “humans don’t know what the temperature was even 50 years ago to a high degree of accuracy.”

    2. Asserted, not proved. Issue is still in debate. And the skeptic/amateur community has not won this debate yet. Furthermore the statement is non-quantititative.

  4. James said

    Obviously the “amateur community” are the only ones with manners.

  5. Jeff Id said

    #1 – It’s funny though.

  6. TCO said

    “There are far too many instrument biases in ground measurements and the satellite measures and radiosonde (weather ballons) over the years suffer from their own inaccuracies as well so in my opinion it’s hard to claim the sun can’t explain it all.”

    I was about to gig you, but the in my opinion caveat rescues this sentence. It’s ok that this is your amateur outsider assessment. I just don’t want people to think that you have really studied it carefully. And I sure don’t want them to think that the biased, amateur, skewed cackles on Wattsupwiththat are any kind of serious proof of anything. Not after JohnV went and ran their numbers to date and Watts didn’t like him doing it (although had no problem jumping to all kinds of conclusions, spinning all kinds of mude before hand based off of individual stations.)

  7. TCO said

    “The temperature rise is likely less than government temperature organizations report because of the large incompletely justified positive slope corrections added to the temp data scientists who do a horrendously and unacceptably bad job sorting and correcting instruments.”

    Uh…maybe. Would feel better with some papers proving it, rather than Wattsupwiththat and a community of cheerleaders. At least Ross gives it a try. Christy too. But if you look at papers vice, “guys who I hang out with on the intranets”, you don’t get such a confidence in the temp data concern. Also, a curious mind would not just look for possible flaws (UHI), but possible corraboraters (sattelites, seawater temp, etc.)

  8. Jeff Id said

    #6 I’ve spent a few days digging through papers and data. Dr. Christy is my favorite source on the issue. I’ve had a bit of email correspondence with him.

    Did you know you can rectify the discrepancies between RSS and UAH until they are nearly exact matches by using the ground data or radiosonde to correct a satellite transition at the mid-point. RSS and UAH use different methods for transitioins and the step is obvious. Also, radiosonde comparison demonstrates four significant areas where trends between sonde and sat are different largely due to instrument change on balloons and sats.

  9. TCO said

    “It’s interesting to me that we can have such a consensus yet not actually know this simple detail, how much does the solar variance affect the earth. Model variation between 10 and 50 percent is pretty high.”

    This is a great point. Extending it further makes one wonder if the recent temp excursion (which, co-happening with CO2, I consider the best support for AGW, stronger than numeric models) is not extreme enough to read much off of. If so, we either need models we beleive in…or to wait another 50 years.

  10. TCO said

    Please don’t reply until I finish chewing the post apart.

  11. TCO said

    “I find it amazing that we don’t often hear 5 of the 10 most active cycles on record happened in the last 50 years. Combine that with the known correlation between Dalton and Maunder minima’s to cold temps which we know simply due to the anecdotal evidence, not by inaccurate measurements or false temperature proxies. There has to be a bit of common sense here rather than complete reliance on computer models, everyone knows sometimes sensibility is lost in statistics.”

    At the end of the day, we need some sort of physical model or statistical proof of impact. Numbers, grasshopper, numbers. Before getting so out in front, so worked up with sturm and drang, get some numbers to back yourself up. And recall that Watts and Basil’s attempt to correlate temps with solar was a fiasco. A fiasco despite him claiming “peer review” (with buddies). A fiasco of obvious things.

  12. TCO said

    4. The professionals/alarmists find me rude as well.

    5. Yeah…ok.

  13. TCO said

    “Did you know you can rectify the discrepancies between RSS and UAH until they are nearly exact matches by using the ground data or radiosonde to correct a satellite transition at the mid-point. RSS and UAH use different methods for transitioins and the step is obvious.”

    Yes. It’s been written about a fair amount, even within the blogosphere. Think it is well known, the differece. Just not known who is right.

    Different topic, what do you think of the seasonal issues as brought up by Atmoz, Tamino, and Deep Climate?

    “Also, radiosonde comparison demonstrates four significant areas where trends between sonde and sat are different largely due to instrument change on balloons and sats.”

    That’s interesting. I guess the question becomes are the sondes good enough to resolve differences of RSS and UAH? I hear the sondes are a mess. Than again, they are what we have (in addition to ground) in order to examine the sattelites.

  14. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Not after JohnV went and ran their numbers to date and Watts didn’t like him doing it (although had no problem jumping to all kinds of conclusions, spinning all kinds of mude before hand based off of individual stations.)

    I really find these hit and run statements unproductive. Maybe John V has recently ran some numbers from the Watts CRN evaluation team, but the last time I did my analysis of that data I heard nothing from John V and had advised him to do more. John V did an analysis using 17 stations as I recall and lacked the numbers to determine any statistical significance.

    I see these same hit and run comments about the analyses of Steve M and others — without links or details.

  15. Jeff Id said

    The Christy paper used sondes to match to UAH. The sonde data doesn’t have a step in this region so Dr. Christy used it to show the RSS was inferior. I used ground data but found the whole process a bit sensitive to the regions on either side still everything I did came out closer to UAH.

    I’ve also done some work looking at the seasonal signal. I find the change in annual signal very interesting, it’s possibly due to changes in atmospheric response to solar input. It seems like it would be possible to enter that delta directly into a climate model and determine the feedback response by CO2. Unfortunately the 6 month timeframe of the signal isn’t quite long enough to make a firm feedback analysis (long term feedbacks don’t have time to set in) but if there’s a non-instrumental variation in atmospheric response to solar input over 30 years, consider what that means for AGW.

  16. Anne said

    TCO #6

    (….. conclusions, spinning all kinds of mude before hand based off of individual stations.)

    TCO#1

    This is not a sentence.

    Not only that, it makes no sense. “mude before hand” ???

    fits in with all the rest of your gibberish, you monkey

  17. JAE said

    “fits in with all the rest of your gibberish, you monkey”

    LOL

  18. TCO said

    Ken:

    I’ve posted longer assertions in the past. At this point, given that you AND I are both veterans of the blogs, I find the general reference sufficient and think your desire for more, represents more of a need to tie me up, than genuine pushing for more clarity and insight.

    Oh…and JohnV’s initial examination, whatever it’s limits was the best to date examination. It was a more systematic approach than the Steve McI approach which averaged stations (did not grid) and superior to the Watts approach of just touting individual stations. Watts is BAD NEWS. He will run for immediate postings of stuff that goes his way, and want not posted, intermediate work that does not go his way. His behavior on the paint screens, solar, and station examinations has been shameful…as well as naive and stupid. The more I see of the weaknesses of my fellow skeptics (in brains, in examining everything skeptically including their side, in issue disaggregation, in failure to complete things, in lack of publishing, etc. etc.) the more I think we may not be in the right on AGW.

    The only thing that gives me hope is some of the idiocy of the other side as well…

  19. Ryan O said

    Test – seeing if my previous comment was accidentally delayed . . .

  20. Ryan O said

    Since it was, let’s try this again:

    Jeff – to throw a few of my somewhat unsubstantiated opinions out there – I think that the burden of proof with respect to solar activity has been reversed in climate science. Direct measurement of solar wind and TSI has only been possible during the space age – or relatively recently. All other measurements are proxies with no good physical relationship established.

    Therefore, the burden of proof should be on those who attribute most or all of the 20th century warming to AGW to show that the sun has NOT been a major contributor. Somehow, this has gotten reversed and it seems to be the duty of skeptics to show that it has been.

    This is unfortunate, as there are several anecdotal pieces of evidence (as you mentioned above) that even in recent history changes in the sun have brought about climatic changes on earth.

    The other unfortunate aspect is that many of the skeptical arguments and AGW proponent straw men I’ve seen have focused on TSI. TSI is only one aspect of the sun’s influence on earth. The solar wind is another. There is no particular reason to believe the solar wind directly follows TSI – in fact, based on Cycle 23 and 24, there is a lot of evidence to show that solar wind changes are, percentage-wise, much more significant than TSI changes.

    This manifests itself in changes in stratospheric aerosols. About 100 tons per day – or ~ 35,000 tons annually – of space dust enters our atmosphere. While this is peanuts when compared to, say, sulphur releases, it’s the point of entry that matters. Most anthropogenic emissions start at ground level, where rain, mist, and other precipitation can settle them out of the atmosphere – limiting their effectiveness at cooling. I believe the half-life for such aerosols is about a day. Only a very small percentage ever reach the stratosphere. Stratospheric aerosols will have a much greater effect than lower tropospheric aerosols. Since the space dust starts in the stratosphere, it has a greater effect per unit mass.

    Now the idea that space dust significantly impacts climate has historically been considered somewhat of a nutty idea because the proponents of such a mechanism (like Muller) enjoyed over-reaching to the point of attributing all climate change to space dust. However, the basic mechanism is well-founded. Unfortunately, there are no studies that I am aware of that place reasonable limits on its relative contribution.

    However, I have a feeling that the (presently) anecdotal correlation between solar activity and global temperatures is not merely a coincidence.

    Just for TCO, I present some references, including some published by our friendly neighborhood pro-AGW periodical known as Nature (snark intended):

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/280/5365/874

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v376/n6536/pdf/376153a0.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6557/pdf/378600a0.pdf

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v377/n6545/pdf/377107b0.pdf

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/277/5323/215

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V62-44DY390-2&_user=7672593&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000072524&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=7672593&md5=36ad2c8dde82b98c58c42e7c6142039d

    http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=4485796&q=Deming+On+the+Possible+Influence+of+Extraterrestrial+Volatiles+on+Earth%27s+Climate+and+the+Origin+of+the+Oceans&uid=1139885&setcookie=yes

    We’ll see if this gets through this time. ;)

  21. Ryan O said

    Damn. Looks like I’ve made a mess of Jeff’s moderating by being impatient . . .

  22. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I’ve posted longer assertions in the past. At this point, given that you AND I are both veterans of the blogs, I find the general reference sufficient and think your desire for more, represents more of a need to tie me up, than genuine pushing for more clarity and insight.

    We need details, grasshooper.

  23. Jeff Id said

    No problem, WordPress probably reacted to all the links. I get about 15 spam’s a day right now. If anyone needs links to cheap cialis, I know where to get some.

  24. Ryan O said

    #23 Next time I’ll just wait a few minutes. ;)

  25. Jeff Id said

    #24

    Actually your point about TSI is a good one. We only have a very short record of actual data. It’s the same situation as temps, we just don’t know very well.

  26. TCO said

    15. If you had to bet, would you bet that the seasonal issue is an artifact of the sattelite instrument/algorithm or a genuine observable? Note that the ground stations don’t see the effect…

  27. TCO said

    Ken:

    I’ll be glad to engage on a specific issue. Just state the area you want to talk about. And meet me halfway, by writing down what your reaction is to even the general statements, what specific sorts of things you would hope to see and how they would influence your further thinking.

    If you just say, link, link, source, source…I may just say go read the entire blog here and at CA!

  28. Jeff Id said

    #26, Has someone run an FFT on ground data?

  29. Layman Lurker said

    Ryan, TCO, Kenneth, if you have not already, read over these posts from Jeff which was an extension of his examination of Tamino’s post on the UAH annual cycle. There is a signal common to GISS, RSS, and UAH (separate from the unique UAH annual signal).

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/an-orbital-heating-signal-from-solar-input/

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/half-year-cyclic-variaition-in-rssuah-and-giss-anomaly/

  30. Jeff Id said

    #29, Now that’s funny. The dumbass in 28 didn’t know the Air vent had done an FFT on GISS. Thanks for the reminder.

    GISS has an annual signal in it also.

  31. Layman Lurker said

    It was semi-annual wasn’t it?

  32. Jeff Id said

    Yup, I see spikes at half year and one year. The half year is stronger though.

  33. Ryan O said

    #32 Solar wind, baby . . . blast them space dusties out of the way . . .

  34. Andy said

    “fits in with all the rest of your gibberish, you monkey”

    That’s the monkey who cannot spell and expects to be listened to.

  35. TCO said

    29. I read ‘em. I confess to not thinking too hard on them. Some surface thoughts.

    A. Why no reference to Atmoz?

    http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/21/interannual-divergence-in-satellite-temperature-records/

    B. This phenomenon seems to be of interest, whatever its source, whether or not it helps UAH (skeptic beloved) or RSS (alarmist beloved).

    C. Looking at both satts, I get the impression that each has a bit of “disease compared to the ground stations”…but UAH more so. My going in hypothesis is that the satts are more messed up than ground…on this sort of thing. But it’s a weak opinion.

    D. It is interesting to think about some forcing (CO2 or solar) that might have an impact that is seasonal. Would like to see it nailed down and published. This is my curioisty as a thinker-scientist. Not as alarmist versus denialist.

  36. Kenneth Fritsch said

    If you just say, link, link, source, source…I may just say go read the entire blog here and at CA!

    You are not the commanding officer in these discussions and we do take your expounding on an issue as the final word. “I will direct you to truth without understanding the path” does not cut it. You throw out hit and run judgments/opinions on people and issues with little or no details. You attempt to advice those who do analyses and heavy lifting here (and CA) and criticize them with no analysis of your own.

    We expect some details and references, grasshopper.

  37. TCO said

    Ken, get a clue son. You need me to make you do pushups until your arms turn into jello. It would be good to strip the false pride off of you.

  38. DeWitt Payne said

    I have to go with TCO on the supposed seasonal signal in the satellite anomaly data. The null hypothesis has to be that it’s an artifact of the algorithm.

  39. Ryan O said

    The ground stations do see the effect, though. Jeff’s fourier analysis wasn’t just on satellites, it was on GISS, too. And the 6-month signal (lower peak for the annual signal) was present in GISS as well.

  40. Jeff Id said

    #40, It’s pretty exciting to me, what a geek. I don’t have any suggestions yet as to how to do anything with it but the response to CO2 should be toward a positive annual anomaly signal peaking a month or two slightly after closest approach. It seems to me that it should be possible to at least calculate the change in short term response of the atmosphere to solar irradiance directly.

    Solar variance is on a longer timeframe so the half year cycle magnitude should have a pretty clean CO2 response signal.

  41. TCO said

    35 A

  42. DeWitt Payne said

    You have more or less sinusoidal annual temperature behavior in each hemisphere. When you sum them, however, they don’t cancel because the magnitude and phase are different for a variety of reasons including higher land area in the NH and orbital eccentricity. For similar behavior, look at the daily global sea ice curve at Cryosphere Today. Now let’s calculate anomalies based on an average that only covers part of the time range and add that temperatures are increasing over time faster in the NH than the SH. It would be extremely surprising if you didn’t see some sort of annual and semi-annual signal for recent data. It’s an artifact and any information is already available by looking at the NH and SH anomalies separately.

  43. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    wow,I work one day and miss all the fun!

  44. Craigo said

    I have it on good authority, ok so I made it up and I asked a few of my peers to review my idea – they said you are full of it but declined to be critical, that until such time as Sol gets more credit for GW than Carb-OO, no further activity will be forth coming.

    Remember – you read it here first….

  45. Kenneth Fritsch said

    DeWitt Payne @ #42

    It would be extremely surprising if you didn’t see some sort of annual and semi-annual signal for recent data. It’s an artifact and any information is already available by looking at the NH and SH anomalies separately.

    Jeff ID, that was my inclination from your FF analysis from another thread – what would a look at the SH and NH separately reveal?

    Associated changes in solar properties and temperature anomalies do not reach the level of science until one can physically connect the two. I have the same problem with CO2 (primarily the feedback effects) and temperature.

  46. Kenneth Fritsch said

    TCO, my motivations for seeing you slowed down are very selfish. The time taken by the heavy hitters in responding to your assertions takes time away from the analyses that they might be doing. It is in those analyses that I am very selfishly interested and not your huffing and puffing. I would have no problem with your serial posts that could perhaps be fulfilling a personal need – it’s the misdirection that bothers me and again for very selfish reasons.

    A prime example of your disinformation campaign is the continuing reference to John V and what you see as a putdown by him of the Watts team effort on the CRN evaluations. I have heard it from you many times is an example of the hit and run tactics that you also use against Watts, Steve M and others. The fact that you often receive no replies has more to do, in my view, with readers not taking you seriously than agreement by silence or of your assertions being unanswerable in their vagueness and lack of detail.

    The details of the John V and Watts issue dates back to the period when the Watts team had expended considerable efforts in doing what I find as an admirable task in evaluating the quality, and by inference, accuracy of temperature measurements coming out of the USHCN stations. John V did some good coding work and seemed in a big hurry to vindicate the GISS temperature series. All this led to the following in the comment below that I have used here previously at The Air Vent to balance TCO’s quips on the matter:

    I think it is an appropriate time for me to reference an analysis of covariance that RomanM did as a professional statistician on some data CRN rating, population, altitude, longitude and latitude that I provided him and also give some history on what motivated this analysis.

    A poster at CA, known as John V, did some good work with the GISS code, as I recall, and was able to provide some station data for comparison with the Watts’ team CRN ratings very early in the process of the Watts’ team evaluations. He then proceeded to make some comparisons of the GISS temperature trends with the available rural CRN1 and CRN2 stations. As it turns out the variability in temperature trends from station to station regardless of CRN rating can be quite high and John V was using something like 16 CRN2 and 1 CRN1 rural stations in his comparison. It was obvious to me that larger numbers were required to make these comparisons given the size of station variability.

    I attempted to do a layperson’s statistical analysis and found from the advice of RomanM that some of my assumptions were incorrect. RomanM did a rather comprehensive analysis that was posted in the link below. He also included an analysis with the Watts’ ratings broken down into the two groups of CRN123 and CRN45. This breakdown provides larger samples because the CRN12 group is rather small and the CRN3 is considerably larger.

    Re: RomanM (#130),

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3169

    My motivation in all these exercises has been to encourage a proper statistical analysis of the Watts’ team evaluations. I used CRN comparisons with USHCN station adjusted data (the Urban series) and would like to see that comparison expanded to the USHCN Version 2 series and the homogeneity adjusted GISS series.

    I have noticed that the latest Watts’ team CRN ratings are not readily available for viewing and that might be motivated by an attempt to prevent impatient people like me from making premature conclusions based on incomplete data. That would make sense to me, but I would also hope that someone will eventually do the proper statistical analyses and to publish them – or least to post them.

  47. TCO said

    Ken:

    JohnV did an initial examination of the stations via gridding. Watts did not like the result because it showed little impact of station type on the overall trend. He wanted V not to post. But he had earlier had all kinds of posts on individual stations…full of inuendo and cackling.

    If someone has done a better reconstruction of the Watts work and shown that a bias did result…that’s great. I am all for better work.

    All this said, Watts is a dodger and a weak brain. The more we have skeptics like him…the more I despair for blog-land skepticism accomplishing anything or even being likely to be right…and certainly despair of them raising the pursuit of truth.

    Speaking of “big hurry” and “seemed to want to vindicate GISS”…that is unsupported and irrelevant.

  48. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Speaking of “big hurry” and “seemed to want to vindicate GISS”…that is unsupported and irrelevant.

    It is not relevant to the validity of what John V presented but it might explain why he jumped in and did an analysis without waiting for the larger numbers of stations needed to obtain statistical significance.

    He was quoting his own efforts not unlike you have continued to do before I pointed to the statistical problems and we agreed to wait until one of us did a proper statistical analysis on the available data. With a great big assist from RomanM, we were able to show differences between CRN123 and CRN45 stations. I have never heard from John V on this subject since.

    The point here is that whatever you think of Watts (or John V) or Steve M or whatever names you chose to call them does not detract from the the work they have done or the validity of it.

    And compared to you, grasshopper, they have put in much more effort and anlysis time in seeking some truths.

    You would do well to listen carefully to what Ryan O is telling you about teleconnections and then if you care to find some links to a physical explantion presenting them here for all of us to learna nd apply to the Steig reconstructions.

    More detail, grasshopper, and less huffing and puffing.

  49. TCO said

    Ken: I’ve watched these cats for years now. Watts is BAD NEWS. He has low brain power and does not question things evenly. BTW, do you have a better recon than the JohnV one? What if this is all the data we got? What could we make of it? Why has Watts slowed down? What is the plan to finish? What ever happened to the paint thing? Doesn’t he feel like a jerk for touting stuff that he didn’t finish? Why is it ok for Watts to tout individual stations and not for JohnV to run a total.

  50. Jeff Id said

    #49, Anthony Watts is asking for first right to publish. His results are like 73% complete, when they cross the 75% mark it will all be published and released. I can’t wait to see uncorrected grade a stations in an area weighted reconstruction. Maybe I’ll ask if I can help.

  51. TCO said

    Watts has been pushing those stations with all kinds of posts on the individual stations. Cackles about the trash burners…all that crap. That’s crap to do that and then complain about someone adding up the running total. Bottom line is if you all work with weak tits like that (in brains and in candor), you show how weak you are.

  52. Kenneth Fritsch said

    TCO, the link I gave you is a statistical analysis by RomanM (who has taught and published on statistics for many years) with data that I provided for him from the USHCN stations.

    I think you are in too big a hurry to justify your name calling and you totally miss the subtler points that are there if you took a less prejudiced view. Many of us saw the same postings and Watts team evidence and came away with different views. What the Watts team saw were stations that obviously were not following the quality guidelines and had potentials for large errors in absolute temperature measurements not related to the climate. The subtle point is: when did the conditions at the station change? If the station had always been in that condition, the all important trend would probably not have been affected. Other subtle points to consider are: would we expect most of the quality changes to have occurred at nearly the same point in time, how reliable is the data prior to 1920 with all the missing data and the station to station data has variations that make small sample comparisons difficult.

    Ideally, I would very much like to see Watts find a statistician of RomanM’s caliber to do a proper statistical analysis on that data that was collected.

    I think perhaps both sides on this issue get caught up in the heat of the discussions and forget that the total temperature US temperature trend over the past 100 years has been rather small and small compared to the rest of the Northern Hemisphere; that there can be large absolute station errors that do not necessarily translate directly into comparable changes in temperature trends; that these quality problems found by the Watts team do add to the uncertainty of the trends calculated from the data series using these data and perhaps, most importantly, that micro climate conditions at individual stations can have a larger affect on that uncertainty than the so called UHI effect and without any capability of the data series producers to adjust for it.

    Watts and his team through considerable effort have provided us with new information about temperature measurements and that is a good thing. And what have you done, grasshopper, but to continue your name calling vendetta and hit and run posts without details.

  53. TCO said

    Ken: I responded without reading the Roman link. Will do so now.

  54. Jamie said

    It is hardly an example of “low brain power” to go and see how the data is collected. And the result is…well lets say…..not very impressive.

  55. TCO said

    Ok, Ken I skimmed that long thread.

    1. I didn’t see (nor has been published) a good case that the bad stations bias the trend.

    2. The JohnV work was a sound approach to try to assess impact. Your halting and Roman’s better efforts to parse the recon more are just fine. Glad to see you follow John’s lead. John was good to run the immediate tally, especially given the Watts silliness PR (posts on individual stations).

    3. McI comes across as a total loser with those silly ROW comments (not germane to either Watts or JohnV).

    4. Watts sure perks up when there is a hope that JohnV is off…but the opposite when not. Shows his lack of character.

    5. I would take JohnV (or moshpit) in a heartbeat to tell the truth even if it went against them. To share a POW cell. Would not do so with either Watts or McI…based on what I’ve seen.

  56. TCO said

    sorry. I styill didn’t really read 130. I clicked the link and it took me to the beginning of that thread. Didn’t realize you kindly gaver better direction. Should I read it?

  57. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Thanks for the soap opera rendition, grasshopper. My mistake. Once a grasshoopper always a grasshopper.

  58. TCO said

    At least that wasn’t your normal stick in the ass wordy post. Maybe there’s hope for you.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: