The Blackboard

The contact form works. (I want to edit it for clarity..but it works. )

RSS out: 0.174

RSS out first again: 2009 1 0.322

Hi Lucia,
Your mention of Kolmogorov at CA caused me to quickly search out some information about someone I knew nothing about. Genius is probably an inadequate description. The story of 1930’s Russian mathematics and the underlying political subtext is a cautionary tale that probably has some relevance to our current orthodoxies. I’ll leave NS, SB and the other math and stats luminaries to the experts and stick to my layman’s parsing. Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then!

Really enjoy this blog. Thanks. Howard Wiseman

Thanks Howard.

Lucia,

Could include a category for all the posts that use or discuss the Santer17 method? Would appreciate it (when I get back to looking at the statistics)

Also any discussion yet on non-linear versus linear maintained hypothesis of the Santer17 Monte Carlo?

GISTemp is out:
2008 15 25 65 42 41 34 53 38 52 56 59 46
2009 52*******************************************************
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lucia:

It looks like Anthony Watts is having issues with Troll-control. Maybe you ought to offer him your plug-in. I get the impression that your current version is still pretty labor-intensive.

My observation over the last several months is that your readership is generally pretty tolerant and reasonable but everyone knows a troll when he sees one. How difficult would it be to add a button to each comment to vote a troll off the site? Essentially, it would add a screen name to a list of trolls, and when a certain threshold (only one vote per non-troll screen name) was reached your plugin would be activated… still leaving you the opportunity to review the posts and reverse the ban. Maybe you can even add an e-mail feature to notify the troll of the ban and give her the opportunity to appeal.

Hi rephelan,
I think Anthony bought a domain name but Wordpress.com still hosts. If so, he can’t use the plugins!

There is a plugin that lets people vote. The trouble is I’m worried most won’t, and the trolls themselves will call other people trolls!

One should never encourage trolls to appeal. . .

Lucia:

Thanks for responding. One learns a lot…. My thinking was that as traffic expands, moderation becomes more of a chore…. restricting the voting to one vote per screen-name (or-email address) per troll vote (e.g. lucia votes to lable rephelan a troll and have him banned. lucia could only vote once regarding rephelan and it would take a number of votes, not just one, to activate the ban). Trolls would certainly attempt to trollify others, but they wouldn’t be able to get the votes…. unless there were some organized union of trolls infiltrating honest sites… but that’s just my inner conspiracy theorist talking. As for people not voting, just borrow the Reg-EM program and let it back-fill those votes for you.

HadCrut is out: 2009/01 0.370

FYI, the NSIDC’s website (http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) is showing that they have had data corruption for about 2 1/2 months with a sensor issue. Hence why they are way too low in there ice area charts.

Interesting. RSS goes down and UAH goes up
RSS:
2009 1 0.322
2009 2 0.230

UAH:
2009 1 0.304
2009 2 0.350

What’s curious, though a different sensor is, that RSS has on their SSM/I page a comment on the F15, the same as the one that NSIDC took out due to misreading of the Sea Ice.

RADCAL Beacon Alert!

Since 2006-Aug-14 UTC, SSM/I F15 22GHz(V) channel has been degraded by an onboard RADCAL beacon. The interference was characterized and removed for most of the data.

However, since 2009-Jan-15, the RADCAL interference has been getting dramatically worse due to the F15 satellite being eclipsed by the earth’s shadow. This eclipsing causes a cooling of the instrument’s thermal environment and worsens the interference by the beacon. As the F15 orbit drifts to earlier in the day, the cooling becomes a more severe problem. We expect this temperature dependent interference to diminish sometime around April.

The effects are severe enough that we have discontinued F15 data production from 2009-Jan-15 until April, 2009. We will revisit our previous correction and apply a new temperature dependent correction later this year. The missing data will be reprocessed and re-released at that time.

Due to remaining small effects, please DO NOT use F15 data from 2006-Aug-14 forward for climate research.

RSS is out…way down:
2009 1 0.325
2009 2 0.242
2009 3 0.194
2009 4 0.202
2009 5 0.090

GISTEMP out for May:
2009 54 44 47 46 55
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May

HadCrut is out:
2009/01 0.384
2009/02 0.363
2009/03 0.362
2009/04 0.398
2009/05 0.400

HadCrut FINALLY is out:
2009/01 0.384
2009/02 0.362
2009/03 0.371
2009/04 0.398
2009/05 0.398
2009/06 0.503

Hadcrut is out, if anybody cares. But June/July virtually identical?

2009/01 0.384 0.405 0.363 0.541 0.228 0.384 0.378 0.542 0.226 0.542 0.226
2009/02 0.362 0.383 0.342 0.510 0.215 0.362 0.356 0.512 0.213 0.512 0.213
2009/03 0.371 0.390 0.352 0.534 0.207 0.371 0.365 0.535 0.206 0.535 0.206
2009/04 0.415 0.432 0.399 0.557 0.273 0.415 0.409 0.558 0.272 0.558 0.272
2009/05 0.398 0.414 0.383 0.564 0.232 0.398 0.392 0.565 0.232 0.565 0.232
2009/06 0.499 0.515 0.483 0.643 0.355 0.499 0.493 0.644 0.354 0.644 0.354
2009/07 0.499 0.515 0.483 0.693 0.306 0.499 0.493 0.693 0.305 0.693 0.305

Fred– It was out on Friday.

Owing to the coincidence…. and the “compelling need” to post about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, I was waiting to see if there was an update. But… I think we may just have a coincidental two months with the same temperature! (Notice June is colder than reported during July. )

I’ll be posting the trends for the months a bit later today or tomorrow.)

FYI: Lucia, at 11:10PM I lost the recent comments area of your blog. Wanted to see if you responded to my rant or just let it go. Enquiring minds (not open minds) want to know. LOL.

The Main Reason I Have know From Past Five Years For Changing Or Improving Climate By Human And His Body Is Totally link To The Climate We Suppose To Know I Am Applied To Change Climates i Know Total 64 Climate That Our Body Has Settled That i Found And Then Tried I has Found the Result by Harryram

Lucia
With your interests in climate & statistics, I think you would be interested in research by:
D Koutsoyiannis

* Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis N. & Christofides, A. (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions.
Hydrol. Sci. J., 53(4), 671‐684 (www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/864/).
** See details in Anagnostopoulos, G. (2009) Assessment of the reliability of climate models, Diploma thesis
(supervised by D. Koutsoyiannis; in Greek), Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering –National Technical University of Athens, Athens (www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/893/).

G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Efstratiadis, A. Christofides, and N. Mamassis, Credibility of climate

. . .Contrary to the common practice of climate modellers and IPCC, here comparisons are made in terms of actual values and not departures from means (“anomalies”). The enormous differences from reality (up to 6°C in minimum temperature and 300 mm in annual precipitation) would have been concealed if departures from mean had been taken.
Could models, which consistently err by several degrees in the 20th century, be trusted for their future predictions of decadal trends that are much lower than this error?

Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis N. & Christofides, A. (2008) On the credibility of climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J., 53(4), 671‐684

Its out. Thought you would appreciate the probabilities of future warming! See:
Copenhagen Diagnosis

The purpose of this report is to synthesize the most policy-relevant climate science published since the close-off of material for the last IPCC report.

Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present-day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a
25% probability that warming exceeds 2°C, even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increases the
chances of exceeding 2°C warming. . . .For example, the IPCC gave the 25-year trend as 0.177 ± 0.052 °C per decade for the period ending 2006 (based on the HadCRUT data). Updating this by including the last two years (2007 and 2008), the trend becomes 0.187 ± 0.052 °C per decade for the period ending 2008. The recent observed climate trend is thus one of ongoing warming, in line with IPCC predictions.

Hi Lucia,
Love your blog, great work as always.
I see you have a list of links on your home page and wonder if my new blog, first article only just written, can get into the list? The blog is “The Science of Doom: Putting Climate Science in Perspective”
http://scienceofdoom.com, first article “An inconvenient temperature graph”
Thanks,
Steve Carson
Brisbane, Australia

Hello Lucia,

I have been reading your blog with great interest and I must say that you have been doing great work! I have a few blogs myself – not climate – and I know the difficulties and the excessive workload that are associated with popular blogs.

I am a total layman in climate issues, but I have some common sense and in my blogs I always try to dig a bit deeper to find the real reasons behind the things I’m writing about.

I am a Finn (hopefully not mad) and I look at things through my own little peephole. Through it I see people fighting about the climate change and nobody has a grasp of the situation. I am also aware that nobody or no organization really understands all the reasons behind the climate change.

Therefore, there is a desperate need to find the most objective understanding of the situation – not forgetting what needs to be researched further to improve our understanding.

Why am I writing to you? It’s not only because I love you nerds, but I feel that you might be able to enlighten the public with your better understanding.

How could you do it? I know that you are not really into popularization, but you could point us to the sources which you consider valid. You could even put up a website devoted to objective data on climate change. The latter means of course a lot of work and maybe somebody is already doing it. We just have no means to judge which of the myriad of sources are actually reliable.

I wish you the best in your work and life and – I’m getting mushy – have fun! It often helps us bloggers to keep the bad weather away .

Lucia,

Curious what your take on this study is. Evaluation of it is way beyond my pay grade.

http://rpc.blogrolling.com/red.....dum.com%2F

Lucia
Thanks for Curry post. Please clearly separate the one paragraph quote of the student from the rest of Curry’s opinion.

There is a previously scheduled House commitee meeting on Climate Change being held at 10 am today and it is to be Webcast Live.

“UPDATED MEDIA ADVISORY FOR 10 AM, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2009

Contact: Select Committee, 202-225-4012

Select Committee Hearing: State of Climate Science
Drs. Holdren, Lubchenco to Show Urgency of Impacts, Risk
**This hearing will be WEBCAST LIVE.”
http://globalwarming.house.gov.....in_content

boballab–Do you have the link for the webcast? I don’t see it on the announcement page.

This is a guess on my part but there is a video tab that takes you to the vidoe library and also there is a player on the home page. These are the only places that I can see where they mugh broadcast it to. The other thing is that might update the page later on.

That is all that I have seen so far. Everyplace that looks to be a link that might go to a player ie the bottom left hand corner goes back to the announcemnet.

Took me awhile but I finally tracked down where the link is for the hearing. From the page linked below is the link to the webcast.
http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0014

Thanks. I’m watching it. The head of NOAA is discussing ocean acidification.

UEA has released this statement on who is leading the “independent” investigation:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/...../CRUreview

Is this correct in your view?

” Recently Shaviv, along with his son, physics Prof. Nir Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Prof. Rainer Wehrse of Heidelberg University proposed a revolutionary theory challenging the widely accepted global warming. “We use advanced astrophysical modeling,” explains Shaviv. “Increasing carbon dioxide emissions indeed traps radiation from the sun, but also releases longer wave radiation back to space. Our calculations suggest that the release slightly outweighs absorption, which results in global cooling, not warming.

Stan–
I don’t know. Shaviv and co-authors may well have recently proposed a theory that specifically suggests CO2 results in cooling rather than warming. If they have, it’s certainly controversial, and would require just as much testing as any other theory.

U of Colorado sea level updated. See: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/index.php

Follow links to time series for data and graphs. Not much change

There’s a survey running here on which destroys more capital, financial fraud in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) or scientific fraud at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Currently UEA is winning 2 to 1:

http://www.zerohedge.com/conte.....re-capital

Which destroys more capital?
Submitted by Marla Singer on 12/04/2009 23:22 -0400
Financial Fraud in the UAE
Scientific Fraud in the UEA

I know you don’t choose the adverts that come up on your blog but do you have no choice whatever? Have you seen the Greenpeace advert? Send us £3 pounds to “stop climate change”. To stop climate change?! Pcture of polar bear “climate change is going to make him extinct” for heavens sake. Now I think about though the pound sign probably means that the ads are region-specific so you probably aren’t seeing them. Still. Sheesh.

Rich–
First: Yes. I can blog ads. The process is onerous, and I would have to block ads one by one. Moreover, I have to identify the specific group who places the ad– which may be an agency rather than Greenpeace itself. So, it can be done, but it’s a pain.

I’m not going to block the greenpeace ad. I think the reason will be clear if I first explain how Google ads work.

Google ads works mostly like this: A company (say greenpeace) selects key words that will appear on pages thinking those words correspond to people who they hope to attract. They suggest howmuch they are willing to pay per click for pages associated with t hose words. (So, Greenpeace might pay $.10 per click for a page that ranks high on “climate change”.)

Google reads the content and places the ads mostly from the higher bidding companies. (So, if I write about betting on climate change, you may see casino gambling ads at $0.50/click instead of those that attract keyword “climate change”. ) Google, being google also looks at metrics and may figure out that my readers aren’t really gamblers and don’t click on the gambling ads– in which case, the $0.10 climate change ads will be favored over black jack ads.

Google also permits advertiser to specify other things– like country associated with a vistors IP. So, they do show different ads to different people. (I sometimes see Chicago oriented stuff, you don’t.)

Now, suppose you see the Greenpeace add: If you click the ad, Greenpeace will be charged a fee, and I will make money. If you do not click the ad, Greenpeace is charged nothing. The amount I make is unaffected by whether or not you actually donate to Greenpeace, buy anything etc. (But Google does track some metric to check whether the clicks look “suspicious”. Disproportionate number of clicks from a particular blog with no action on the click might look suspicious. This discourages bloggers from writing click-bot scripts to just click away or hire people to just click every ad for no reason at all. I have no idea what Google’s threshold is for diagnosing ’suspicious’– but obviously, curiosity clicks happen. As you recall, I clicked on that toothwhitening ad I blogged about and did not sigh up for the introductory offer that would cause me to spend $200-$1000 for a few tubes of toothpaste. The person who ran that page made whoever much one makes for that particular ad. )

So, now, getting to the Greenpeace ad: I suspect that Greenpeace will get very few donations from clicks from my site. Some people might click out of curiousty (which would cost them money) but few will donate. But, if they do donate, that’s fine with me too. Even if it were not fine, it’s too much work for me to spend time at GoogleAds trying to tailor which ads appear and which do not appear. So, I’ll rely on Greenpeace and google to solve the problem. If no one clicks those ads, Google’s algorithm will figure out that they shouldn’t appear and Google will display something else. If people do click but don’t donate, then Greenpeace’s ad agency will figure out how to better tailor their ads to appear on blogs that attract people who might actually donate to Greenpeace.

Either way, eventually, irrespective of my feelings about the ads, very few greenpeace ads will appear at my site.

Hi Lucia

I came across this article allegedly extracted from the Philosophical Society (I think). Perhaps it is worth a posting on its own?

Regards

MarkR

Century old experiment proves CO2 and IR don’t warm atmosphere.

Description of simple experiment that shows CO2 can’t cause warming by trapping Infra Red (Credit to mystery blogger)

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography. Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a “coldframe” rather than a building a person could walk into. He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.

During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses. The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn’t indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature. The two sheets probably didn’t conduct heat at the same rate.

The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn’t cause higher air temperature, then CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures. The heated air in the greenhouses couldn’t rise higher than the sheets that covered the tops of the greenhouses. Heated air outside is free to rise allowing colder air to fall to the ground. Atmospheric CO2 is even less likely to function as a barrier to IR or reflect it back to reheat the ground or water than the sheet of glass in Wood’s greenhouse. The blackened cardboard in Wood’s greenhouses was a very good radiator of IR as is typical of black substances. The water that covers 70% of earth’s surface is a very poor radiator and produces only limited amounts of IR as is typical of transparent substances. Water releases heat through evaporation rather than radiation. The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR.

Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. Trapping IR with CO2 would be like trying to confine mice with a chain link fence. Glass reflects a wider spectrum of IR than interacts with CO2. The glass sheets reflected IR back toward the floor of the greenhouse. CO2 doesn’t reflect IR. At the time of Wood’s experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn’t absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25) Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth’s surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR. Contrary to the lie repeated in news stories about climate, science doesn’t say that CO2 is causing higher temperatures by trapping IR. Empirical science indicates that no such process exists in this physical universe.

“The ’small group of scientists’ up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/c.....ntionally/

My Dad is in much the same condition as yours, although the medication only has slowed his memory loss rather than restored memories. It’s a bitter-sweet time we children go through with elderly parents. Go lightly over the heavy ground and treasure the time.

Hi, I stupidly allowed myself to be drawn into posting at “Open Mind”. It occurred to me that it might be worth cross-posting somewhere more open-minded (!) in case its relevance/use is twisted out of existence. So hope it’s ok to post it here. Thanks!

Adjusting for ENSO might help give a more nuanced view.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....res_09.pdf
The ENSO-adjusted trend is flat between La Niña 1999 and La Niña 2008. (0.00°±0.05°C decade–1 ). Which the authors describe as “…a much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise” [than for the non-ENSO-adjusted trend]. Note that the authors use the word “disagreement” despite the fact that “Near-zero and even negative trends are common
for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability.”
Hence there is neither “contradiction” nor “agreement” (a false dichotomy perhaps). The reality is that the last decade of global temperature has been at the low end of what was expected by mainstream climate scientists.
Consider the analogy of the Met Office winter forecast for the UK for 2008/9. Their model showed a 75 per cent chance of winter temps being average or above average, so this was forecast as the likely outcome (see press release – “Trend of mild winters continues” http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....80925.html ). As it turned out, the winter was colder than average ( http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/cl.....inter.html ). In other words, temps were at the lower end of what they expected. Not quite contradiction, but hardly agreement with their forecast either.
So what is required for firm contradiction of the climate models typical of IPCC AR4? According to Knight et al, 5 more years of a zero ENSO-adjusted trend. For now, we will just have to settle for “disagreement” with the models’ best estimates.
By the way, the relevance of the trend line in the post above is flawed by the effects of Pinatubo 1991-1994. Without this it would be steeper and hence the recent flattening would be more evident. Not to mention that the trend ought to have steepened since the 80s.
To save certain people wasting everyone’s time by trying to “counter” my comment with abuse and distortion, I will point out that a more constructive approach (for defending the models) would be to look at the extent of Hadcrut3’s interpolation over the Arctic, and at solar variation.

Still no sign of my comment at Open Mind

I appreciate what you are trying to do with your mugs etcetara but think you don’t have enough contact with the believer public. If I had say your mugs and invited some I know around they would say that’s great you believe that the world heating up. You are showing the hockey stick any detail will be ignored. How about the 2000 year record from the SAR which shows the MWP and the LIA in their glory. The point is climate changes it always has and always will.

MikeO–
Unless I pay a monthly fee, I can only run 1 mug at a time! So, for now, I’m only showing 1. But I can make another mug later.

I am saying the mug and the other things on the face of it agree with AGW, the detail will be lost on joe public. They would be better not to be available at all.

I am new to your blog, but I quite enjoy it.

I am a reasonably intelligent engineering geek (former geologist), and I quite enjoy the intelligent and spirited discussion. Can’t do that as much as I would like.

I am heartened to hear that your father is doing better. My wife is going through similar issues with her mother, and it is not easy.

Thanks and Best Wishes,

Ernie Page
Salt Lake City, Utah

Hi Lucia – I’m a long time lurker of your site. I came across another interesting response of the CRU emails; this one from Petr Chylek of LANL, another noted climate researcher (its similar in tone to that from J. Curry). Its public and don’t know if you’ve seen this stuff yet, but another interesting piece of the puzzle, IMO. Also, his update email from yesterday summarizes the local feedback from LANL folks. If you would be interested in reading and/or posting any of this stuff drop me an email (I assume you have it from the registration above).

Steve Geiger

Hi, Lucia! I read the whole thread here. Somewhere in the middle, nasu (the finn) was suggesting you set up a website with objective data on climate change. Well, I think I just have done that! it’s at http://www.climateref.com and it’s not a blog and it won’t compete by serving or analyzing scientific data (because I know how much it takes to run those sites). It is simply a reflection of public view on climate change at any given point in time. A good site to add for anyone’s weekly-or-so reference.

Regarding MikeO’s comment on your mugs, I agree with him that the graph, although factually correct, will not get the point across. I think most of my friends, although intelligent above average, if they came over would probably get it but wouldn’t be completely sure in themselves if they got it. I suggest using certain “assurance” elements. Anyway, if you are on your next redesign round, ping me in, I’ll try to help.
-Marco

Easy question.

Over the last few days I’ve been seeing analysis of raw station temps and folks saying this raw data has just been released.

Sorry for missing this, but which agency just released their raw data?

Marco—
I’m not sure what “message” you think the mug should convey. This is the decline that was hidden in one of 3 papers in which it is known to have been hidden.

SteveM is going to send me data from one of the other papers that hid a larger decline.

Lucia,

I read an article on your site a while back about how you could make an excel site that took random data and compared it to the temperature record – treating the random data as a proxy. Was there ever such an excel file? If so would it be possible to get a copy? I was thinking that this would be the ideal way of explaining the actual scientific basis of “hiding the decline”.

cheers

Al

Al–
I have an excel spread sheet that does what you say– I’d have to hunt it down though. But that analysis has nothing to do with “hide the decline”. It has to do with a particular argument about an analysis method, that can, in some circumstances trick an analyst into cherry picking and automatically creating a hockey stick out of noise.

It’s a different problem.

Hi Lucia,

The “subscribe to main feed” doesn’t seem to be working for me. I get a “A CDATA section was not closed. Line: 672 Character: 30
<![CDATA[" error.

The comments feed link works fine.

Thanks for all the info on the blog.

Hi Lucia,
I got a question from a news editor: Why are there so few women among climate skeptics? I have been wondering the very same thing? Is there a psychological reason to it or what else? What are your thoughts on this issue and may I quote you?
All the best,
Maggie @ The Climate Scam

Lucia – thought you would be interested in this summary:

“We have found that the data from UAH is more credible than data from RSS”

See:
Temperature trends in the tropical troposphere
Professor Lennart Bengtsson 25.9.2009
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t.....RiAvstRnrw

On the evaluation of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere
Lennart Bengtsson1, 2 Contact Information and Kevin I. Hodges1
Climate Dynamics
10.1007/s00382-009-0680-y
http://www.springerlink.com/co.....5t8465n4q/

Hello. I’m doing a story on Climategate and was hoping to send you a few questions. Is that possible?

Lucia,
A prominent physicist, Bob Park sends a weekly commentary on science related news. He wrote this week among others:
“2. CERES: SO WHAT WAS IN THE CLIMATEGATE E-MAILS?
A hacked e-mail passage that was widely quoted in media accounts of climate-gate, begins: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Francisco Valero, Director of the Atmospheric Research Laboratory at the Scripps Institution for
Oceanography, says the statement is totally correct. The problem began where most of our problems began: at the start of The Bush administration. Because Al Gore initiated it, the Bush administration postponed and eventually canceled the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), meant to continuously monitor Earth’s radiance from the L1 point between Earth and
Sun. Instead NASA began a program to get the information from low Earth orbit: CERES, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). The problem is that the low-Earth orbit satellite is so close that it sees only a narrow swath on each pass around the planet. Climate models require accurate radiance measurements over the diurnal cycle, and those data are not at hand. DSCOVR was designed to provide what the low-Earth orbit
satellites cannot. An $18.7 billion NASA budget sent to the White House last Sunday includes only $5 million for continued refurbishing of DSCOVR. That is also a travesty.”
I would very much be interested to know what climate researchers think about the issue (not the blame game – I am tired of Bush the cause of all ills mantra).
I don’t know, how well this issue fits into your blog – perhaps not at all. You’re welcome to post this, ignore it, or take whatever action you see fit.

Denes Marton

lucia, can you post link to my recent oped in Juneau Empire abouit cliamte refugees and let readers here discus pro and con?

Lucia,
I tried to send this yesterday but I’m not sure it went through. If sent twice, my apologies. Could you please acknowledge receipt?
Thanks.
A prominent physicist, Bob Park sends a weekly commentary on science related news. He wrote this week among others:
“2. CERES: SO WHAT WAS IN THE CLIMATEGATE E-MAILS?
A hacked e-mail passage that was widely quoted in media accounts of climate-gate, begins: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Francisco Valero, Director of the Atmospheric Research Laboratory at the Scripps Institution for
Oceanography, says the statement is totally correct. The problem began where most of our problems began: at the start of The Bush administration. Because Al Gore initiated it, the Bush administration postponed and eventually canceled the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), meant to continuously monitor Earth’s radiance from the L1 point between Earth and
Sun. Instead NASA began a program to get the information from low Earth orbit: CERES, Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). The problem is that the low-Earth orbit satellite is so close that it sees only a narrow swath on each pass around the planet. Climate models require accurate radiance measurements over the diurnal cycle, and those data are not at hand. DSCOVR was designed to provide what the low-Earth orbit
satellites cannot. An $18.7 billion NASA budget sent to the White House last Sunday includes only $5 million for continued refurbishing of DSCOVR. That is also a travesty.”
I would very much be interested to know what climate researchers think about the issue (not the blame game – I am tired of Bush the cause of all ills mantra).
I don’t know, how well this issue fits into your blog – perhaps not at all. You’re welcome to post this, ignore it, or take whatever action you see fit.
Denes Marton

Lucia, I don’t have your email. Please send me a message; I have an important/semi-urgent question for you!

The “Enemies Caught in Action” photoshop (November 22, 2009) made its way to the the US Senate. Senator Boxer used it in a press conference on December 14, 2009. You can see it here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded it comes at the end of her rather confused talk featuring the Green Hell wanted posters.

In 1999, 2001, Prof. Emeritus Don Easterbrook of Washington State University gave quantitative global temperature projections based on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation:

Global cooling should begin soon and last until about 2040, then warm again until about 2070, and cooling again to the end of the century. The total increase in global warming from now to the end of the century should be only about 0.4°C, compared to nearly 11°C (maximum) predicted by the IPCC (Fig. 3)

See: Figure 3 in CLIMATE CHANGES IN THE COMING CENTURY

Recommend:
1) comparing the accuracy of Easterbrook’s projections to the subsequent temperature record. e.g., per your +/- 95% lines
2) comparing the relative accuracy of Easterbrook’s projections compared to IPCC’s.
3) comparing when IPCC diverges from Easterbrooks projections sufficiently to distinguish them.

SeeNew geologic evidence of past periods of oscillating, abrupt warming, and cooling

Global climate change, global warming

Dueling projections should provide more “excitement” as well as a better example of science at work.

UAH anomaly data out on Dr. Spencers web site.

Lucia,
I believe there is an error in your latest “multi run AR4 ” analysis. The last year of the study should be 2010 and not 2001???

Thanks for your work,
ivp0

Scratch my last message. After reading through I see that you are using start year comparisons. Never mind.
ivp0

ivp0–
Thanks. Yes. My title refers to the *start* year. All tests end with Nov. 2009.

Hi Lucia,

I found your blog via WUWT.

I have been a licensed architect since 1977 and my practice specializes in energy saving design.

I found your blog re: energy saving lighting interesting.

I did not notice any mention of the power factor issue with CFL’s, they require about 2X the generating capacity of the combined wattage of lamp and ballast.

The billions of CFL’s that will end up in the groundwater will be a pollution tramsfer of unprecedented scope – mercury.

The CFL’s i have tried do not function any where near the claims made. They usually fail in about 10% or so of the rated time… some do last longer.

They will not dim any where near as well as othersources.

LED bulbs are very labor intensive as of now and this makes them so expensive as to never payback.

There is a new company ” vu1 corp ” that is making a CRT like mass produced bulb that will provide long life at low cost and low energy use, while being able to screw into a medium base fixture and use standard dimmers – NO I do NOT own stock in this company.

I do think that a great deal could be learned by the readers of your blog vis a vis energy.

For example, are you aware that our (US) buildings use about 1/2 of all of our energy? And that vast reductions are possible!

Lucia,
You may want to look at the comments here, or maybe not, as they take your name in vain

tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/#comment-38367

parallel-
Thanks. Not seeing anything substantive there. But then, that’s pretty standard in comments at Open Mind.

Lucia, you have a habit of using acronyms a lot (which is fine), but for those of us not embroiled deeply in the world of climate blogs can you provide a cheatsheet that we can reference from time to time? For example – who or what is MT?

Michael Tobis– I’ll edit to clarify.

“The limits to Growth” by Donella H. Meadows, et al is another source of background information to Patrick Courrielche’s “Peer-to-Peer Review…” article. The book was required reading and regurgitation for a 1974 college Geology course.

Its “sophisticated” world model and doomsday predictions, which have proven to be false, provide startling similarities to AGW/climate change methods.

Knowledge of the book would be very useful as a hysterical…ugh…historical reference.

lucia,

Since I’ve installed GreaseMonkey and Climate Assistant, I went looking for other helpful scripts. I found a killfile addon for GreaseMonkey that allows one to hide comments from specific authors. Unfortunately it only works at The Air Vent, not CA or here (where it would be most helpful). I don’t have any familiarity with javascript to see what it would take to make it work here. Thoughts?

Lucia,
Check out Green Energy Reporter’s interview with Andy Revkin at http://greenenergyreporter.com.....or-fellow/.

Regards,
Matt

I am teaching a “physics for non-science majors” course this year, and I have spent countless hours over the past month searching for reliable information that I could give my students about global warming. I really like this blog. Thanks!

(And it was a nice surprise to see Howard Wiseman’s name right at the top of the page. Hi, Howard!)

Anyway–I need help!! Can somebody point me to the page that shows and discusses the graph featured in the “lukewarming mug”? I haven’t been able to find it yet.

Thanks again!

Hi Lucia,

I read over again the rather long exchange with Micheal Tobis at ‘The other side is the DEVIL’ thread. I found the whole thing a bit discouraging. It was clear that Micheal is no dummy, but that he really was not interested in a rational discussion of cost of CO2 emissions reductions versus climate risk, not interested in discussing model uncertainties as they relate to quantifying climate risk, nor interested in assigning a discounted present economic value to possible future benefits; all critical subjects for defining a rational response to a perceived risk. The only thing he seemed interested in was saying that any significant risk of warming means we have to reduce CO2 emissions NOW, regardless of cost…. and no other position is worthy of discussion.

Since this seems pretty much the same position taken by many, if not most, AGW alarmists (e.g. bugs, sod, boris, David Gould), it looks like there really is not much room for striking a policy compromise. Sad.

SteveF–
My general impression is that Michael likes to sound nuanced, but very quickly tries to collapse all issues down to one dimension with yes/no answers. His arguments for his answers are generally hole-ier than a swiss cheese. Often, the most forceful one is “my friends think this”. But what’s worse is often, when reading his stuff, I tend to think of the game Jeopardy. We always know the answers, the trick is that we don’t necessarily know the question!

Hi Lucia, I’ve had a similar correspondence with a dubious company named ‘West tech limited’. The internet keyword thing set alarm bells ringing so I googled it and came up with your post. We were at the ’send me the form’ stage (although I had no intention of filling it out).
Anyway, thanks for this post. It confirmed my suspicions..
Yours,

Olly

About Cats and Climate

Hello Lucia,

I wrote to you some time after the Climategate incident wishing for reliable information on climate change. My wish has not faded, but my knowledge has somewhat increased.

I now have one computer fully engaged in getting published information on climate change, two more on more specific tasks like comparing Google and the rest the of the information world and all things like business related projects starting up. It is huge.

Then I have started a university project – gladly paid by me – on understanding the math used in the analysis of climate data.

First, I must say that I appreciate your efforts – and everybody else’s – for that matter.

I find in my analysis that the data used by the IPCC models and by anybody else is not a place for a simple statistical analysis, but it contains so much erraneous information that the math models being used are simply not valid.

If anything, people should use the fuzzy methods. We are nowhere close to any credible deterministic models and the statistics combined with the fuzzy feature of the result interpretation produce the worst results ever.

I think this is where we are at the moment.

I am a person that should be the greenest of all. I have managed to create a financial independency through a licensing agreement of a production method of organic foodstuffs. I believe your cats eat the stuff nowadays.

Funny as it is, so do some of the readers here themselves, too.

But I am not happy with the way things are going.

I am a Finn, but I live mostly in Russia these days. That gives you some perspective about the climate change. Our small nation is a well educated one. It is so funny that there are people who can challenge the best of RealClimate’s arguments even on the most popular forums.

This has nothing to do with you, but money teaches one to to be the best sceptic of all times. Money only comes from where people go. We are in the middle of the greatest data misinterpretation – intended or not.

I am in the middle of the university people while writing this. I even let you know a true IP this time. These guys think I am a bore when I say that “The climate change data is far from being honestly collected or interpreted at this time” but that is the best I can say for now.

Now back to the cats. I had a really good friend when I was a kid. He was a robust black-and-white rogue cat who never listened to anybody. I once caught him catching a bird in the berry bushes. Being five or so, you do not have too many arguments against a cat, but I thought it was not right.

So I took the bird out of his mouth, gave him a moral lecture with all the might a five year old might have and I never saw him catch another bird again.

What do you think happened?

I am allergic to cats. Later on my cat was killed because of my bad allergic reactions caused by nickel from the watch given to me by my father.

All that I am saying is, that we should not constrain ourselves to the readily assimilated ways the nature works, but really try to understand it first, and then, think about it again – and again.

I still think cats are the most wonderful things.

Sincerely,
nasu
nasu@nyms.net

Comment about the residual annual in UAH/RSS data.

Yup. Is a tough problem. The mishmash of different satellites leads to lots of problems.

Working 2003 onwards when the satellites are relatively stable I have removed the excess from both datasets. Nicely, processing this gives the same result for daily and monthly with UAH. (no daily for RSS)

When done to both datasets result is a reduction in noise, RSS and UAH become close. There is a larger term in UAH but RSS should not crow.

UAH is far preferable because of the good global coverage wherein lies a tale. Much too large for now.

Bought two of the Hide the Decline mugs. On the back “leaked correspondence discusses…” the first “s’ is omitted in “discusses”, not great in a piece of hardware satirizing – and rightly – the inaccuracies of the alarmists. Oh, the irony. Bummer!

Lucia, I have been having a discussion with a DOD Ops Research Anal. re: the better/best statistical approach for analyzing Temp data. His position, jeff id’s approach AR(1) is subject to providing unreliable results. If you have the time and/or interest could you join us at http://angrybear.blogspot.com/.....l#comments

BTW, I have let my blog go dark as I think the battle is over and there are plenty other sources with current info.

Tks

CoRev (Don Black)

Sorry, for got to tel you who the antagonist is: his blogname is 2slugbaits. Along with being a relatively high ranking ORSA at DOD, he teaches Econ and Stats part time. He is very much like Tamino in his use of stats.

After visiting Jeff Ids blog to correct hime this is what he said:

“CoRev,

Took your advice and took it up with Jeff. He’s clueless. The good news is that there was an effort to detrend and account for seasonality. The approach was rather ad hoc, but at least there was an effort. The bad news is that Jeff doesn’t understand that an AR(1) model is unacceptable when the AR(1) coefficient is very close to 1.00 (most of his were more than 0.96). So taking the lag adjusted data and using it to fit a “trend” line is meaningless. He’s just fitting a random walk. He admits that an AR(1) model probably isn’t the best (wow!, talk about understatement), but his excuse was that a lot of other people use it as well. On that I agree…you see it used a lot. But convenience is not an excuse for bad analysis.”

Bad analysis?????

Recommend readers add CA Assistant. as providing a very helpful compact editing bar with the comment entry screen.
See: http://climateaudit.org/ca-assistant/

Hi,

I recently purchased a small mug and a coaster. I am pleased if this provides some small measure of support to your work. You should know, however, that the quality on both leaves something to be desired. On the coffee mug, it looks like the graphics are applied “decal” style and they were applied in a manner that has the entire graphic “sloping” across the cup; the borders are not parallel with the top and bottom of the cup. In both cases the graphics are somewhat blurred.

The cup has a places of prominence on my desk, but skeptic skeptics have already made snide comments like, “You skeptics can’t get your story straight” thinking they were quite hilarious.

This isn’t a huge issue for me, but I thought you might like to know.

Ed
Ann Arbor

Ed–
Sorry to read that! If Cafe press has switched to decal looking applications, and is applying things skewed, I need to hunt down a new online service.

HadCrut is out: 2009/12 0.407
with a proviso note:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/cr.....pdate.html

Fred– Where, precisely, are you finding that? I keep downloading and the HadCrut NH&SH only has data through November.

Same place as always: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/ha.....sh/monthly

Lucia – following McIntyre’s link to the EPA’s responses to Endangerment comments, see: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: EPA’s Response to Public Comments
Volume 4: Validity of Future Projections

Comment (4-26): Some commenters (e.g., 0169, 0400, 0454, 0545, 0582, 0736, 0798, 2818, 2882, 2898.1, 2933, 3446.1, 3477) argue that computer models have failed to predict recent temperature changes, especially temperature trends over the past decade, and are therefore flawed. Several commenters (e.g., 2883.1, 2898.1, 3215.1, 3596.1, 3596.2) state that 30-year temperature trends were at or below the low end of IPCC projections, and a few commenters (2898.1, 3215.1, 3596.2) include extensive further analysis of these trends compared to model trends. . . .
Two recent studies have addressed whether recent temperature trends are consistent with model runs, and both Easterling and Wehner (2009) and Knight et al. (2009) find that the recent trends are well within model variability. . . . Knight et al. (2009) report the following:
ENSO-adjusted warming in the three surface temperature datasets over the last 2–25 yr continually lies within the 90% range of all similar-length ENSO-adjusted temperature changes in these simulations (Fig. 2.8b).. . .

etc.

Dear Lucia,
I appreciate your blog, especially the detailed analysis of global temperature from variuos sources.
I wonder whether you have seen the recent contribution of Doug Hoffman (January 29) on The resilient Earth (http://www.theresilientearth.com) about the S. Solomon article in Science. In my view this article may be one of the most important in recent years because it points to the important (and as yet unrecognised) effect of water vapor in the stratosphere in regulating global temperature. Perhaps you could give it some attention on your blog. You might also consider to include ‘The Resilient Earth’ on your Blogroll list.
Kind regards,

Wil Tax, The Netherlands

Dear Lucia:

I’ve been a regular reader of your blog and have learned much from it — keep up the good work!

As you may be aware, a few weeks back I released the “ClimateGate: 30 Years in the Making” timeline on JoNova’s site. Since then, it’s been revised, edited and updated by a dedicated volunteer group and I wanted to advise you the latest version has just been published at the following link on her site:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/.....-timeline/

The original release had thousands of downloads as it helped the lay public understand the revelations from the CRU e-mails and also the last 30 years of history behind AGW in an easy to understand graphic format. I’d be grateful if you could help us get the word out with an announcement on your blog.

Thanks for your help and support.

Best regards,
Mohib

Dear Lucia,

Would you please re-open the thread
http://rankexploits.com/musing.....word-scam/
for comments?

I think it could be a nice initiative to try and let it open, so that people (like me) can find a thread to discuss about the CN and HK internet keyword and domain scams that are becoming as huge as an avalanche.

Antonis– done! I added that post number to my list also.

Thank you and please let me know if I can post a picture to my remarks. KS

Just a couple of interesting sites,
http://euro-med.dk/?p=11956
http://euro-med.dk/?p=56

Regarding AR(1) plus white noise:

http://rankexploits.com/musing.....-compared/

I really think it amy a bit more complex than the discussion permitted. I also suspect that the relationship maybe only very very nearly true. It comes down to three cases depending on how the the two sources of white noise in the AR(1) plus noise are correlated. (-1,0,+1) each will give a different MA parameter and I believe for only one of the three can the equality hold. I also suspect it is when the two sources have a correlation of one. The effect of changing between uncorrelated (the example in question) and correlated is subtle; a small dip or bumb in the spectrum at the critical frequency of the filters involved. I doubt that this would readily make itself apparent when looking at lagged correlations unless you cared to average many thousands of cases and you had genuine white noise (I also fear that the small amounts of autocorrelation that may occur for extented periods using pseudo-random number generators feeding an inverse normal function may swamp the result). Also I do not find that the ARMA noise is a simple function of the two AR noises but rather the sum of two different AR processes on the two noises. One reddened and the other blued. Again the addition of two such coloured noises would indicate to me the need for correlation at the crossover frequency to provide a flat spectrum. The differences viewed in terms of the lagged autocorrelation coefficients are not going to bother anyone, probably of the order 0.0001 so it is only likely to me of a minor mathematical interest to know if it is precisely right when the nosie correlation is one or zero. I am afraid that I do not have any neat equations as yet but I may look at it again from a filter point of view which may yield them up. If I do I will get back. I am interested to know the answer regarding the effect of the correlation of the two AR noises and I do not mind being wrong (i.e. relationship holds when correlation = 0) just as long as I can see why I am wrong. I can see that for the case when the correlation is -1 the relationship almost certainly does not hold as this would create a notch filter and a hole in the spectrum of the MA noise. Anyway I found the issue fascinating to think about.

Alex

Alexander==

A
lso I do not find that the ARMA noise is a simple function of the two AR noises but rather the sum of two different AR processes on the two noises.

The are the same in the sense that the lagged auto-correlations look similar. They are not necessarily the same in the sense of giving identical predictions for next months weather.

Only the first matters when computing the uncertainty in the trend from for the time series.

I suspect you are making this more complicated than necessary because you may be used to using ARMA to make short term forcasts. That actually requires doing the ARMA, and distinguishing between these two types of systems. But for determining the trend with the minimum uncertainty and the uncertainty in that trend, you don’t need to do that.

Lucia,

I was only looking the proposition in the abstract, as whether the equivilence is true or false and the effect of correlation on both that and the way it changes the choice of the MA coefficient. I hoped I made it clear that there is little likelihood of it making much practical difference. As it happens I am not using ARMA for anything at all. Now I suspect that the proposition is true and that I am missing something in the way I understand the issue. I do realise that the choice of the MA coefficient is dependent on the AR coefficient and the ratio of the standard deviation of the two noise sources, but also on the correlation between those noise sources. I believe that there should be a formula that gives the MA coefficient from just those three parameters. Turned upside down that might allow one to judge whether a practical example indicated that the white noise component added to the AR(1) was uncorrelated with the AR noise signal or not. That aside, I expect the proposition is true and that altering the MA coefficient is all that is required to compensate for correlation in the two noise sources but the details elude me, proving the veracity of the proposition and extending it over possible correlations is a small, yet for me, abstruse point, but then I am small and abstruce.

Best Wishes

Alex

Alexander–
I have checked the autocorrelations for both processes by generating very long synthetic series both ways with parameters that, based on algebra, should match. The correlograms are identical. There are some ways of looking at the two that make them different, but for my purposes, only the shape of the correlogram matters.

Lucia,

Thanks and I am pretty convinced myself now.

For what it is worth I have taken the bother to compute how the lag(1) autocorrelation value is derived from the input parameters for both ARMA(1,1) and AR(1) + Noise (with correlation between the two noise sources). The effect of allowing for uncertainty as to whether the noises have a non-zero correlation is reflected in an uncertainty in the autocorrelation coeffecient (phi) in the AR(1) series. In the case in question rather than being 0.8396 it could be from about 0.73 to 0.86 for fully negetive and positive correlations.

Gratifyingly if I calculate the Lag(1) coefficient by plugging in your AR(1) + noise paramaeters and apply the inverse of the ARMA lag(1) formula I can get the MA coefficient directly and it is the same -0.4046 that you get.

If anyone is interested I can give formulae for the expectation of the lag(1) correlation coefficient for both the AR(1) +Vn and ARMA(1,1) cases from their parameters. It is then an easy matter (in the uncorrelatated case) to derive the AR(1) parameters from the ARMA(1,1) ones and vice versa as I did above.

I have to confess to arch-scepticism and I can rarely let things that are probaly true but not self-evident lie. I will see if I can calculate the epectations of Lag(n>1) coefficients for both AR(1) + Noise and ARMA(1). I know that they are almost certainly phi^(n-1) times the Lag(1) coefficient and if I find the time then I will have my peace at last and not bother you more.

Best Wishes

Alex

Alexander–
I too don’t feel I “know” something unless I understand the basis and have shown myself– or seen someone else do it in sufficient detail to tell their demonstration is right.

Trenberth makes some surprising (to me at least) statements about GCM’s… probably/maybe they won’t surprise you, Lucia.

http://www.news.com.au/courier.....97,00.html

Lucia,

Regarding the closed thread:

http://rankexploits.com/musing.....certainty/

I am a bit puzzled by some aspects of the following:

“If we assume the global mean surface temperature (GMST) for the earth is an AR(1) process, and lack of precision associated with measuring the system superimposes white noise on that process, the autocorrelation for the measurements process should vary as:
(1) ρm(t)= α e-t/τ

where ρm(t) is autocorrelation of measured values as a function of time , t is time, τ is the integral time scale for the AR(1) process, and α is the ratio of the variance of the residuals for to a fit for the GMST itself (i.e. σR2) to the variance of measurements of the process ( σm2)
That is α=(σR/σm.)2 (Note, I’m using “R” to imply the weather noise for GMST is “red”, “m” to imply “measurements” and “e” to describe measurement errors in the measurements. Using the assumptions described previously, σR2+ σR2=σe2. ) ”

[I am afraid it lost superscripting in the cut and paste!]

I understand in general that the value of the first lagged autocorrelation is given by the ratio of the (sum of the product of all the component variances with their values of Phi) to the (sum of all the component variances). Now in this case I take it that the trend has been removed in an attempt to elliminate all the highly autocorrelated components, hoping to leave just Vn/(1-Phi^2) and Wn, so the lag 1 autocorrelation would be expected to be Phi*(Vn^2/(1-Phi^2)/(Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) + Wn^2) which should equal your a*Phi, so I would have a = (Vn^2/(1-Phi^2)/(Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) + Wn^2). Now Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) is your red weather noise but you also seem to describe this as the variance of the residuals to the fit. These residuals would be (provided it did indeed remove all the additional autocorrelated components) my denominator (Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) + Wn^2). Finally I cannot make any sense of σR2+ σR2=σe2.

I noticed that in:

http://rankexploits.com/musing.....-suggests/

you seem to use a as the reciprocal of how you do here:

α= 1+w’2 and w’=( σe/σθ) is the ratio of the standard error in the measurements of θ to the standard deviation of θ due to inter-annual variability in climate

It follows that for t≠0: Rm,θ(t)= e-t/τ/α (compared to your ρm(t)= α e-t/τ above) so perhaps something got flipped above. But even still I cannot fathom it out.

This (α= 1+w’2 and w’=( σe/σθ)) version of a is the reciprocal of my (Vn^2/(1-Phi^2)/(Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) + Wn^2) e.g. (Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) + Wn^2) /(Vn^2/(1-Phi^2) = 1 + ( Wn / (Vn/SQRT(1-Phi^2)) )^2 which I am happy with.

Sorry to be a pain over a lot of closed threads, please take comfort in that they are still being read.

Alex

I’m getting accused of spam by your filter, when I try to post:

@Nick: No finding of fact?

I assume you only would only accept a court conviction? Well there won’t be one, because the ICO has said it’s already too late for them to bring to court.

But the point is
(a) it’s more than a blogger’s opinion
(b) The ICO says there is a case to answer (or would have been if the facts had come to light earlier).

I edited a comment and it appeared immediately in it’s edited form. Did you change something?

SteveF–Caching must be off

http://www.encyclopedia.com/vi.....13-of.aspx
The Citadel (1938) – Part 13 of 13

Interesting monologue. A parallel between 1938 medicine and 2010 climate science.

Lucia you and the Blackboardites might be interested in Johan Lehrer’s article in Wired called: Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Uphttp://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat it covers the work of Kevin Dunbar who is a sort of anthropolgist of science — ie.e he studies how scientists go about doing science and has some observations very apposite to climate science

2 quotes of interest
“While the scientific process is typically seen as a lonely pursuit — researchers solve problems by themselves — Dunbar found that most new scientific ideas emerged from lab meetings, those weekly sessions in which people publicly present their data. Interestingly, the most important element of the lab meeting wasn’t the presentation — it was the debate that followed. Dunbar observed that the skeptical (and sometimes heated) questions asked during a group session frequently triggered breakthroughs, as the scientists were forced to reconsider data they’d previously ignored. The new theory was a product of spontaneous conversation, not solitude; a single bracing query was enough to turn scientists into temporary outsiders, able to look anew at their own work. ”

“But experiments rarely tell us what we think they’re going to tell us. That’s the dirty secret of science.”

Re: Andrew Kennett (Feb 21 18:36),

The provocative title of Johan Lehrer’s article in Wired, “Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing” got me to click on the link. Drat, it didn’t work. There is, however, another article, Accept Defeat: The Neuroscience of Screwing Up, that pretty much matches Andrew Kennett’s description.

It’s pretty good, though there are some points I would quibble with. Worth reading, and worth viewing climate science in light of its cautions.

AMac — yes that is the article. There is a lot of bedate here about what science is — some of the mud thrown is “unscientific”, “thats not how science works”, “thats not how science is done”. If you ask me the science on how science is done is not settled.

I see some potential problems with a nasty mail database because the database would make these e-mails public. For one, some might feel emboldened by the public attention that such a database inevitably would yield. Second, speculations and accusations that later are proven to be baseless will almost certainly arise. There is a distinct possibility that more harm than good would come from this. So in the end, I am glad that You are not doing it yourself, Lucia.
I tried to post this but something went wrong…

denny– Several posts went into spam today. I fished them out. I’m also seeing the blog throw access errors.

Hi Lucia,

How do I get http://scienceofdoom.com on your highly regarded blogroll?

What’s the criteria:

-Writing an article on autocorrelation without really understanding it? Pass
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/.....rrelation/

-Misusing statistics? Probably but I’m not sure

-Being educational about climate science without abusing or insulting anyone? Check out the whole blog, I think a pass

-Having my article re-used by Anthony Watts? Pass
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/.....-in-japan/

Let me know how to succeed!

Steve
Brisbane
scienceofdoom.com

Lucia
I see your post: Design a Program for Surface Temperature Records – on Feb 12 following by a large number of 2 line references to comments. Thanks for the thoughtful details. However, I can’t figure out how to see the comments themselves. e.g., by Judith Curry.

Are you using the Climate Audit Assistant? If yes, you should see a little money looking thing at the bottom of your brower. It will be yellow. Click that to lose the color, then refresh the screen.

If that’s not the problem, let me know.

That works. Thanks

Lucia:

I was wondering if you had seen Tamino’s latest work:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/20.....ven-false/

I would really love to see someone like you, Briggs or Chiefio take a look at this analysis and see if you agree with it, disagree with it or think it is fair or unfair in some way.

I don’t have the background in statistics necessary to do it myself – but it seems important to review it.

RickA–
I glanced it at. He’s probably right. But let me explain why I don’t say more:

Long, long ago, my readers asked me to dive into trying to “fix” the surface temperature record as Anthony and Chiefio are tring to do. I said I have no interest in doing all that tedious stuff because doing it absolutely right and attending to everything is simply tedious.

It’s also worth noting that Roy spencer is reporting similar surface warming as reported by CRU. http://www.drroyspencer.com/20.....and-areas/

Since Judith Curry has stirred up the Big Oil funding flap again, how about a contest for a coffee cup/tee shirt slogan? I’m thinking of something along the lines of the Rush Limbaugh “Charter Member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” coffee cup in response to Hillary Clinton’s accusation that her husband’s problems were caused by said conspiracy.

Carrick:
Your comments “That the planet has been warming dramatically since 1850, and that the warming 1980-current is the most dramatic warming over that period” and “Actually I know with absolutely no doubt that it’s getting “dramatically” warmer, and going from a “Little Ice Age” in 1950 to a more optimal temperature where people don’t have to struggle so hard to make do… is dramatic to me” makes several assumptions that are not totally valid. The temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 was as large and fast a rise as the rise from 1970 to 2000. While the level at the later date was higher, this was mainly due to milder winter and nighttime temperatures, not hotter daytime and summer. This did reduced the “struggle so hard to make do”. Also, while the last decade has had the higher average temperature over modern times, most of this was due to the highest latitudes increase, which means that it had little negative effect on most people. However, the occurrence of recent cold temperatures in the mid-latitudes has been the most dramatic in its negative effect on the main population centers. This occurred despite the overall high average.

getting a 404 for the continuation of the thread comments

I think something is weird at Dreamhost….

K.

It’s back. Thanks for letting me know. Dreamhost was also doing weird things with dates on the betting page for UAH.

Re: possible future extension of the successful threads about Zeke’s spatially weighted temp analyses, here’s one idea.

(I *love* thinking up things for other people to do, esp. considering what I pay.)

Maybe two simultaneous threads, one that’s coders-only, and a second where the rest of us could comment. That way, the person like Willis E (*) who is presenting their work (a la Zeke) could focus on responding to expert technical critiques.

Just a thought.

(*) Assuming interest on their part, of course.

AMac–
I invited Willis to post a long time ago, but I had difficulties getting him past the .htaccess block I installed out of paranoia. (I haven’t had trouble adding the proper “allow from xx.xxx.xxx.xxx” for anyone else.) I think his service might change his IP’s all the time.

Anyway… I can’t .htacess protect my wpadmin area, and he can’t know in advance his IP. I’d develop a work around if his voice was otherwise silenced. But since he’s posting at WUWT and CA, I think the public already has an opportunity to discuss his analyses.

Lucia,

> the public already has an opportunity to discuss his analyses.

Thanks for response.

What you say is certainly true (yay web), and yet I’d like to see his work “audited” by people of the caliber you’ve somehow assembled for these latest threads–Zeke, Carrick, Carrot Eater, Mosher, Roman M, Nick Stokes, et al. Two outstanding issues in my mind:

(1) Is what Willis claims (e.g. on Darwin adjustments) correct, and reasonably interpreted?

(2) Are his claims significant as regards the important questions of the overall accuracy, precision, and reliability of the land-based instrumental record? (2a) A couple of stations being off might not matter in a universe of hundreds or thousands; (2b) An equivalent number might be adjusted down as up.

Absent lurking at a back and forth of a high-signal discussion with skeptics (or equivalent), I consider the matter completely unresolved.

Lucia,
My question is this:
Why are anomalies considered the most valid way to measure temps in the first place?
If removing a lot of stations does not change the outcome, then how much information can they actually give us?

Why are anomalies considered the most valid way to measure temps in the first place?

It’s not most valid in any and all circumstances. For some things, you want to know real honest to goodness temperatures.

However, it’s useful if you have your series aren’t all continuous and don’t all overlap. In particular, the anomaly method tends to cure precisely the “march of the thermometers” problem when measurement locations vary in the record.

It’s not perfect, but it’s better than just averaging all the temperatures in this instance.

test

Lucia,
Would it be good to review why anomalies are better gauges of change than analyzing actual temperatures?
Or am I even asking the question correctly?

hunter–
It might be useful to show “toy” problems addressing each type of issue anomalies handle better. It’s quite a bit of work and I would have to write a series of posts. I’m not sure I want to do that– unless someone asks for a very specific hypothetical to be demonstrated.

Dear Lucia,
Dr. Judith Curry graciously provided me with a line to your blog in response to my plea for websites I could go to for unbiased information on climate change that might be useful to laymen.
Now that I have spent some time on your page, I find that the information is tantalizingly close to the edge of comprehension. I can almost follow the process.
I was wondering if you or your readers might have some advice as far as reading material I can use to aid in understanding the analysis being carried out here. Keepin mind that my career has been spent in electronics repair, with the past 15 years spent carrying out data analysis using basic statistical tools. Anybody know where I can find “Climate Analysis for Dummies”?

Thank you in advance,
Rick Emery

Rick– It’s best if you point to a post and ask a specific question. Otherwise, it’s very difficult to suggest what you should read. I don’t think there is any such book as “Climate Analysis for Dummies!”

Spencer and Christy have come out with a next edition UAH dataset:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/la.....peratures/

Fred Nieuwenhuis (Comment#36600)-This is probably the better place to do that, huh? Technically I beat ya to it, though:

http://rankexploits.com/musing.....ment-36594

I’d like to post to the currently closed thread http://rankexploits.com/musing...../#comments unless there is a more recent thread on falsification. The message I’d like to leave is that the IPCC climate models are not falsifiable, thus lying outside science.

Lucia,

You abd your crew may like this toon
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_2fgn.....P(web).jpg

Lucia — you may be interested in this news story “James Hansen supports nuke power”
http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....5838858482

Lucia, The past few days, you’ve had great posts (toy problems), guest posts (Zeke), and in-thread discussions from all parts of the warmist-skeptist spectrum. Thanks.

Thanks. Soon… I’ll be returning to making angering the other half of the planet by, one again, pointing out the models mean for the trend is biased high. . .