Data Comparisons

No…. you probably aren’t a troll….

23 Comments

I’m tweaking Troll Control to be more troll hostile. It will block trolls from reading or posting comments.

However, implementing involves changing the theme and the plugin. I’m doing this live at the blog, which is, in some ways stupid…. but it’s also in same ways easier.

Dan Hughes who IS NOT in the troll list got a message. So, if you got one too, you are probably also not a troll. Sorry…. this will be happening on and off today.

23 thoughts on “No…. you probably aren’t a troll….”

  1. It seems TCO has a message blocked on New Thread on TT hotspot but it shows up on the new message summary on the right hand side of the page and is readable if you click on it. This seems to block anyone else from posting on that thread.

  2. Barry– I see the problem. It seems to occur if people arrive at the link by clicking on the blocked person’s comment. I’ll think of a work around, but because of the way I reorganized, as a practical matter, it will resolve itself really soon! 🙂

  3. I think I corrected that issue. The new way of doing will suck less cpu. The server doesn’t like CPU intensive plugins (for good reason.)

  6. Hi Lucia,

    A new paper is out that takes a different stab at the auto-correlation issue.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL036228.shtml

    The study presumed that there is no warming bias in the temperature records of later years.

    There is also an inverse hypothesis that would be interesting to test: if one does presume that an underlying warming signal exists then what is the probability of have X years where the record high temperature is not exceeded.

    I suspect that a 10 year period without exceeding the the record high is fairly improbable given the parameters used in this paper. But you never know.

    Tamino has a post on it.

  7. Lucia:
    “So… you show GISS with the lower slope? I haven’t checked, but I can on Monday.”

    GISS is the blue trend line. It’s slope is higher than the average of the other three. This basically indicates that GISS has continued the upward divergence from the others that we saw earlier in the year. Hansen isn’t going to give up manufacturing AGW all by himself if he has to. But I’ll be happy to wait for you to check that out on Monday.

    Interestingly, when I charted the other three individually, HadCrut3 had the highest slope. But averaging with RSS and UAH pulled the slope down. What I find incredible, as I update my data every month, is the ajustment to GISS and HadCrut3 that is made every month. And it’s not just for the last few month. The changes often go back several years. More often than not, the changes produce warming. I’m guessing that there are months that have been modified 20 or 30 times. It makes one wonder if these historical temp records have any meaning at all.

  8. Oh… nooooo… So it looks like I owe more brownies?! m And I’m behind.

    I’ll need to bake on Monday and get to the post office.

  9. “And I’m behind.”

    No need to rush Lucia. Whenever you get to it is fine. In any case, it’s probably a blessing that you don’t have to eat my cooking. 😉

  11. On the m Mauna Loa stuff– based on prior reading, to some extent they checking may require physical post calibration. So, they can “check” that the numbers aren’t due to weird drop outs, but the final check will require the post calibration. (I’m not sure on the physical post calibration, but I think that may be an issue. It can be for some instruments that can drift. In those cases, one wants to schedule regular calibration checks– but we can’t know what will happen in any upcoming check.)
    Still…. interesting the rise happens to be smaller than other years. It is still a rise though.

  15. lucia (Comment#8505) January 11th, 2009 at 11:56 am ,

    The post calibration is mainly a check of the gas in the calibration gas cylinders to be sure that those concentrations haven’t changed over the course of a year. The increase of 0.24 ppmv year to year is the lowest on record. The next lowest is 0.29 in 1964 when the average rate of increase was about half what it has been recently (~1 ppmv/year compared to ~2 now) Also, the drop was all in the December number. 2008 had been running about average or maybe above average, but instead of the normal December increase over November of nearly 2 ppm, the concentration remained the same. It’s probably the collapse of the global economy, but Algore will likely try to take credit. The next few month’s data should be interesting. If the concentration continues to drop below normal, it may convince people who think that the increase is not related to human fossil fuel use and land use changes that they are wrong, or at least shut them up.

  18. Oddly enough, its probably both :-p

    That said, there appears to have been an issue where November 2008 data was repeated for December 2008, and the number increased quite a bit when it was fixed.

    The growth rate in atmospheric CO2 for 2008 turns out to be a more respectable 1.58, though its still the lowest in almost a decade.

    See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

  19. Zeke–
    This issue came up on two threads.

    Looks like my theory of “could be error” has come through again! I think with this CO2 data, we sometimes need to wait weeks. The site seems to be staffed by 1 or two people, and providing data on the web is not the number 1 priority. ( And why should it be? Yes, we are interested, but I’m guessing that is a side task.)

  20. No matter how fun jumping on the latest monthly temperature of CO2 number is, we should definitely take immediate releases with a grain of salt. Plus, at the end of the day both sides tend to make too much of noise (be it a hot 1998 or a cool 2008).

  21. Zeke–
    I look at temperature regardless. But currently, the most recent temperature released makes very little difference to what I observe about consistency or lack of consistency between projections and data.

    Hadley and GISS values are usually fairly stable after 2 months. (Hadley more so than GISS) If we limit ourselves to two month old data, AR4 projections don’t compare well to data.

    For the comparison to look good, it will either have to turn out that GMST measurements are found woafully faulty since 2001. As I see it, someone will have to decree that Anthony Watts has been qualitatively correct– the temperature measurements suffer from all sort of problems. Then they will have to argue that the problems introduced an downward bias in temperatures, and this bias crept in slowly from 2001 to 2008. Alternately, missing the Arctic temperatures is a very large issue.

  22. Lucia,

    they’ve already adjusted up to about 1.8 for the year.

    Which leads to why I made sure everyone saw it. We have seen them quickly CORRECT low readings. We have NOT seen them correct readings on the high end. Similar to the temperature record, it is exceedingly convenient that the adjustments always seem to reinforce the Politically Correct theory they support.

    Personally I think they are too sloppy to be entrusted with this type of work.

  23. Kuhnkat–

    I don’t think we have any evidence to suggest the Mauna Loa group is reluctant to correct high readings. I’ve only witnessed incorrect low readings so far, and for all we know there haven been know incorrect high ones in the time I have been blogging and paying attention to these things.

    It may be true that other groups are reluctant to fix incorrect high readings– or admit error generally. But the CO2 group seems to include very few people, and the reason for the mistake seems plausible.

Comments are closed.