pull
in
Look at the temperature differences caused by the paint. They are far bigger than the small "AGW" warming that's making people predict the end of our species.
The "hockey stick" may be just the change in paint technology.
That would really be hilarious... just bad instrumentation.
And ice melts may be caused by particulates, not CO2.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
pull
in
The 'hockey stick' is a fabrication from fraudulent statistical methods and data sets. Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit
"To test the power of Mann?s data-mining algorithm we ran an experiment in which we developed sequences of random numbers tuned to have the same autocorrelation pattern as the NOAMER tree ring data. In an autocorrelated process a random shock takes a few periods to drift back to the mean. Initially we used a simple first-order autocorrelation model, but later we implemented a more sophisticated ARFIMA12 routine that more accurately represents the entire autocorrelation function associated with tree ring data. In statistics these kinds of models are called ?red noise.? The key point was that the ARFIMA data is trendless random noise, simulating the data you?d get from trees in a climate that is only subject to random fluctuations with no warming trend.
In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time. The reason is that in some of the red noise series there is a ?pseudo-trend? at the end, where a random shock causes the data to drift upwards, and before it can decay back to the mean the series comes to an end. The Mann algorithm efficiently looks for those kinds of series and flags them for maximum weighting. It concludes that a hockey stick is the dominant pattern even in pure noise."
----------------------------------------------------- It does need 'something in the data' to 'mine' so they included bristlecone pine that everyone knows is not a temperature proxy. Again from his report-----------------------------------
"If the flawed bristlecone pine series are removed, the hockey stick disappears regardless of how the PCs are calculated and regardless of how many are included. The hockey stick shape is not global, it is a local phenomenon associated with eccentric proxies. Mann discovered this long ago and never reported it"
-----------------------------------
And that is only the tip of the iceberg in the fraud called 'Climate Change' with not the least being the conspiratorial coordination of methods, datasets, and results among East Anglia 'researchers' who then claim to be 'independent studies', when clearly not, and then they cross reference each other as 'supporting' their results, when the results were 'required' to match by prior conspiracy.
pull
in
Yes!
Latex paint makes both measurement extremes - peak hot in the day, peak cold at night - more extreme as compared to whitewash. I bet latex is more extreme (higher emissivity in the IR) than lead-based paints, too. The entire "global warming" curve may be just following changes in paint technology.
It's amazing what a little thinking can do.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
pull
in
That is just another dittohead denier site parroting Watts original and relatively interesting experiment. What is actually surprising is how badly all of the Stephenson screens with or without any paint on perform when they are in direct sunlight.
Whitewash undershoots the curve soon after the sun is lost, acrylic is about an hour later and bare wood last of all. When not in full sun they all track the air temperature fairly well.
The noise in the daytime curves is genuine from the variations in the actual turbulent air temperature as the wind blows it past the sensors.
at
There is no doubt that a better Stevenson screen enclosure could be designed today but to keep results comparable with prehistory it probably makes no sense to change it now.
BTW how exactly do you think the change to latex(sic) acrylic paints on Earth could possibly affect satellite measured temperature data?
-- Regards, Martin Brown
What exactly makes you think satellites have been in use long enough to identify climate change?
pull
sensor in
at
Satellite data is going to be far more repeatable. As satellites are replaced, there should be lots of overlap history to make sure the longterm measurements are accurate. But we don't have much history of satellite data, certainly not enough to verify the hundreds-of-years assumed correlation of CO2 to temperature. And we don't have satellite data to check against historical whitewashed, differently-sited Stevenson boxes.
What something is this important, some scrutiny of the instrumentation is justified. Yelling "denialist" doesn't dismiss the paint issue.
Remember cold fusion? It was shocking how much bad calorimetry was being done in respected electrochemistry labs. Temperature measurement is hard.
It *does* make sense to change it now. Understand the history of air temperature measurement - paint, siting, whatever - and correct the historical temperature record. Anything short of doing that is very bad science. The alarmist community doesn't want to "change it", to look at possible measurement errors, because they are heavily, emotionally, financially, academically, politically invested in AGW.
Earth is probably getting warmer, but maybe it's not. It's worth being sure.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com http://www.highlandtechnology.com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom laser drivers and controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro acquisition and simulation
pull
sensor in
at
My external sensor is hidden in the foliage of my Grapefruit tree ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Give scientists their due: there's a knowable temperature scale set by those standard stations, and that's GOOD ENOUGH. If you can determine the non-ideal features of the stations , the corrections are just a line of software.
Long-term global climate models showed global warming clearly, in a wide variety of indicators, back in the 1980's. The whole expert community came together on a consensus in the early 1990's.
Hireling agents (legal representatives, public-relations folk, advertisers, lobbyists, and dirty-trickster disinformation artists) can and will spew denials until their paychecks bounce, ignoring all facts.
So, you can look for expert advice, or for rumors. Both are on the Internet. Expert advice says global warming is real, present, dangerous.
software.
Then they should quantify the effects of the change in paint and siting, and do it, not just chant about denial. Ignoring instrumentation errors is denial.
The models keep changing, and the parameters aren't known in magnitude, maybe not even in sign. Concensus about models of a highly nonlinear, chaotic, poorly understood system is a bad way to do science.
Is Al Gore worth a billion dollars yet? He's close.
Hey, why bother to think when there are experts like Al Gore to tell you what's true?
-- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
what's
Why would I trust anone who owns that much stock in Apple?
software.
No, they work backwards from the conclusions to the find the appropriate fudge factor.
With fudged data.
Instead of using government grants to do the same?
Expert: A has-been drip under pressure.
I do, when they practice science, and am eagerly awaiting the day when AGW proponents decide to give it a try.
If the data is flawed, and there's ample evidence it is, then it isn't a "knowable temperature scale."
Now there's a 'scientific' tolerance for you. No need for confusing frills like +- X% or confidence factors. Just 'good enough'.
That's a big "if', especially when you're not looking because the station does what you 'want to see'. After all, that's what your 'good enough' means, doesn't it.
By, no doubt, using the East Anglia approach of determining the proper 'correction' based on it producing the 'desired result' with an undocumented 'line of software' and the source data destroyed so no one can verify, much less repeat, the process.
But, no problem. We simply stencil "I'm a Scientist" on their T-Shirts and then no one is allowed to ask.
Models that, to this day, have to be continuously pushed and cajoled into producing the 'desired result' because, left to run on their own, they otherwise produce nonsensical results. Models which, in an attempt at 'validation', are further forced to 'match' the known fraudulent East Anglia trend sets and your Alfred E. Neuman "what me worry" heat island temperature stations, with 'problematic' sets, meaning the damn things 'go the other way', wholesale discarded.
No to mention that models cannot reliably 'predict' outside the conditions they are validated against. For example, that is why models made back in the early days of integrated circuits are inadequate for modern chip design.
The 'scientific fact' is that models validated, except no 'climate' model is, over past temperature trends, which are unknown due to deliberate mangling of unreliable data, are unable to predict future temperature trends because the entire premise of the thesis is "the times they are a changing."
Let's take a well known 'real word' example in the earth centric crystal spheres model of the universe that, for over a thousand years, accurately 'predicted' the positions of the 'heavenly bodies', which already puts it light years ahead of climate models in that it actually 'worked' for the intended purpose. It was, however, wholly incapable of 'predicting' the moons of Jupiter, or any other 'unknown' object, because those fell outside the parameters it was validated against.
It also happened to be a completely wrong model despite working well against the known data, which brings us to the next 'scientific fact': a model accurately mimicking known data (a feat climate models have yet to achieve) is not 'proof' of the theory behind the model.
'Consensus', assuming such a fabrication can exist, is not 'evidence' of anything (other than, perhaps, mass delusion) and anyone who argues otherwise is no scientist.
For over a thousand years the crystal spheres model of the universe was as close as one can get to a 'scientific consensus' and you see how well that worked out as 'proof of theory'.
With "rumors" defined as 'the other guys' and "expert advice" defined as 'those who agree with me'.
That is the classic "appeal to authority" logic fallacy but if it's 'true' then the 'facts' will show it and no 'appeal' to 'believe me', or appeal to alleged 'consensus', is needed and it's certainly not appropriate.
It is when the speaker can't support his claims that such 'appeals' are made so remember that the next time you hear a self proclaimed 'expert' tell you about his 'belief' enjoying an alleged 'consensus'.
No, actually rumors would be comments that cannot easily be attributed to persons. Expert advice refers to the less-than-casual statements one hears from folk who (1) submit their work to peer review, (2) have a professional, ethical, reason to be accurate, and (3) also sign their work.
Actually, it's the didactic argument. Children should not disregard the warnings they hear from adults, and non-experts should let the fire department tell them when it's safe to go back in the building. In climate progression, there are experts and most of us are NOT their peers.
The 'consensus of informed opinion' adds to this argument because of a phenomenon known as 'the wisdom of crowds'. The didactic argument wouldn't be allowed in a mathematical proof, nor would the wisdom of crowds, but that's why there's no mathematical proof that it's cold in winter.
Probably works quite well there provided it never gets direct sunlight. Trees have active cooling by transpiration although citrus trees don't lose very much water that way with their waxy leaves.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
John Larkin schrieb:
at
Hello,
if it was only the different paint, each station should have a sudden step rise after it was painted with latex instead of whitewash before.
Bye
John Larkin schrieb:
Hello,
but what about the retracting glaciers all over the world? There are some comparisons of alpine glaciers with photos about 100 years old and a new one from the same point of view. The differences are obvious.
Bye
What about them? What about all that "science" around them? Perhaps you'd rather live during an ice age?
There are also tide tables going back several hundred years, showing something like a one foot/100year increase in sea level. You can't see any big change in the slope over that time period. (No observable 'hockey stick') But I also wonder what are the time constants for the oceans.
George H.
Figure out that Easy Bake Oven yet?
Yours has a pretty dim bulb in it, doesn't it, DimBulb? Tell us again how a 100W light bulb heats a room less than a 100W heater. You're just too funny, Dimmie!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.