The Common Anomalies Method (CAM) requires that only those base stations that were present during the common base period be used when averaging the anomalies. Since this would be overly restrictive, the common practice at GISTemp is to apply manual estimated TOBS and MMTS adjustments as a way of artificially extending the series or infilling missing data. The method that GISTemp uses for making these adjustments is opaque and not adequately disclosed. But in all cases, such adjustments reintroduce (and perhaps amplify) errors that CAM was supposed to eliminate. Its Kabuki theater designed to create the appearance of science. Face it, there is no magically method for taking an ad hoc network of uncalibrated, poorly sited thermometers (whose location is constantly changing) of differing and changing technologies whose data was collected by random, untrained people at random and uncontrolled time of day and convert that into a global anomaly series capable of discerning temperature differences of 0.07C.
The errors in the individual measurements are not normally distributed because of UHI bias. And, Michael Mann, of all people, is now arguing that the temperature record is a *non-stationary* process (that's how he's now justifying his defective end-point padding)! So, if you accept that as true, then OLS regression is misspecified. Sorry, your grade school statistics won't work here. The error bars are immense.
No doubt its been getting warmer for the past 200 years. But, as an engineer, I question our ability to measure average global surface temperature to +/- 0.07 C. Such a measurement system would be an amazing engineering accomplishment. I don't question that the temperature anomaly for 2010 was 0.62, what I question is the asserted measurement error of +/- 0.07. I would accept a number of something like 0.62 +/- 0.50 with only a bit of skepticism. At +/- 0.25 my BS detector goes off. At +/-0.07 my rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-that-people-could-be-so-gullible reaction takes over.
The problem is that the press gives uninformed yet passionate "activists" a stage. These uninformed people then can shape policy. Now, after 20 years, this person finally has accumulated the basic knowledge needed to assess the situation, and guess what, decided Nuclear's not so bad after all. Great. This should be a lesson to the press.
You seem to be well versed in this topic. Could you please point me to peer reviewed work that proves the fundamental scientific underpinnings of the greenhouse effect. This should be a pretty simple assignment for someone as knowledgeable as you. I await your reply.
I'm trying to form an opinion on this subject, and its hard becasue its not my area. The question I have about the ice cores is why does the ice core data not go right up to the present day.
Not very many people know this, but the first draft of the Bill of Rights contained an amendment that read: "The right of the people to choose which light bulb to install in their homes shall not be violated". But I think it was Jefferson who said, "That's BS. The stupid little people surely can't be trusted to make informed decisions on such weighty matters as this. Is it not the government's moral obligation to tell people exactly which light bulbs they must use? What higher purpose could government possibly have? It is only the public good for which I am concerned".
Chip, chip, chip...what is that sound I hear. Oh, it is only the sound of the nanny state, pay it no mind.
This article is fairly insulting. First, it's 4 women and one man. The sub-text is, 'stupid women'. Second, the things they say are really not all that outrageous. It's more an example of techno-elitism -- people who consider themselves superior, mocking those who are not so technical. Yeah, its true that most foriegn chemicals don't accumulate in the body to any great extent, but the basic concern about running inorganic chemicals through our system and the interactions they have in transit is a reasonable concern. On balance, most of these seem like minor gaffs. I'm more concerned with Al Gore and Tom Cruz saying things they know are not true in order to influence the uninformed. Why didn't these high profile examples make the article?
Grant money and fame create sub-conscious motivations that bias modern science every bit as much as "corporate funding". The simple fact is that no one understands the mechanisms that cause ice ages and interglacial periods. Those who predict future behavior without understanding causation are selling snake oil. Its no more complicated than that.
Slashdot Mirror
The Common Anomalies Method (CAM) requires that only those base stations that were present during the common base period be used when averaging the anomalies. Since this would be overly restrictive, the common practice at GISTemp is to apply manual estimated TOBS and MMTS adjustments as a way of artificially extending the series or infilling missing data. The method that GISTemp uses for making these adjustments is opaque and not adequately disclosed. But in all cases, such adjustments reintroduce (and perhaps amplify) errors that CAM was supposed to eliminate. Its Kabuki theater designed to create the appearance of science. Face it, there is no magically method for taking an ad hoc network of uncalibrated, poorly sited thermometers (whose location is constantly changing) of differing and changing technologies whose data was collected by random, untrained people at random and uncontrolled time of day and convert that into a global anomaly series capable of discerning temperature differences of 0.07C.
The errors in the individual measurements are not normally distributed because of UHI bias. And, Michael Mann, of all people, is now arguing that the temperature record is a *non-stationary* process (that's how he's now justifying his defective end-point padding)! So, if you accept that as true, then OLS regression is misspecified. Sorry, your grade school statistics won't work here. The error bars are immense.
No doubt its been getting warmer for the past 200 years. But, as an engineer, I question our ability to measure average global surface temperature to +/- 0.07 C. Such a measurement system would be an amazing engineering accomplishment. I don't question that the temperature anomaly for 2010 was 0.62, what I question is the asserted measurement error of +/- 0.07. I would accept a number of something like 0.62 +/- 0.50 with only a bit of skepticism. At +/- 0.25 my BS detector goes off. At +/-0.07 my rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-that-people-could-be-so-gullible reaction takes over.
If you can only observe 4.62% of the universe, how do you know that the other stuff, the stuff you can't see, isn't older?
The problem is that the press gives uninformed yet passionate "activists" a stage. These uninformed people then can shape policy. Now, after 20 years, this person finally has accumulated the basic knowledge needed to assess the situation, and guess what, decided Nuclear's not so bad after all. Great. This should be a lesson to the press.
You seem to be well versed in this topic. Could you please point me to peer reviewed work that proves the fundamental scientific underpinnings of the greenhouse effect. This should be a pretty simple assignment for someone as knowledgeable as you. I await your reply.
I'm trying to form an opinion on this subject, and its hard becasue its not my area. The question I have about the ice cores is why does the ice core data not go right up to the present day.
Seems like this would be easy to verify. There should be the remnants of the tunnels still in place. HAs he found any?
Not very many people know this, but the first draft of the Bill of Rights contained an amendment that read: "The right of the people to choose which light bulb to install in their homes shall not be violated". But I think it was Jefferson who said, "That's BS. The stupid little people surely can't be trusted to make informed decisions on such weighty matters as this. Is it not the government's moral obligation to tell people exactly which light bulbs they must use? What higher purpose could government possibly have? It is only the public good for which I am concerned". Chip, chip, chip...what is that sound I hear. Oh, it is only the sound of the nanny state, pay it no mind.
This article is fairly insulting. First, it's 4 women and one man. The sub-text is, 'stupid women'. Second, the things they say are really not all that outrageous. It's more an example of techno-elitism -- people who consider themselves superior, mocking those who are not so technical. Yeah, its true that most foriegn chemicals don't accumulate in the body to any great extent, but the basic concern about running inorganic chemicals through our system and the interactions they have in transit is a reasonable concern. On balance, most of these seem like minor gaffs. I'm more concerned with Al Gore and Tom Cruz saying things they know are not true in order to influence the uninformed. Why didn't these high profile examples make the article?
Grant money and fame create sub-conscious motivations that bias modern science every bit as much as "corporate funding". The simple fact is that no one understands the mechanisms that cause ice ages and interglacial periods. Those who predict future behavior without understanding causation are selling snake oil. Its no more complicated than that.