tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8293960176648893191..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Stop the presses! Anthony Watts has mentioned the Californian drought - then does a TisdaleSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69870595241588217802015-07-28T10:05:54.398+10:002015-07-28T10:05:54.398+10:00That whole US Presidential circus is going to be s...That whole US Presidential circus is going to be something to watch, preferably from a safe distance. One hopes Republican fragility on the subject will encourage Clinton to get climate and the green economy up front in her campaign. Ideally all Democrats will do the same and get some sane governance back into Congress.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79154756719986089892015-07-28T09:57:46.417+10:002015-07-28T09:57:46.417+10:00Actually I expect to hear "no warming for 17 ...Actually I expect to hear "no warming for 17 years" echoing on for more years yet. The phrase is embedded now and the passage of time will not erode it.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79330101184284766452015-07-28T05:56:47.606+10:002015-07-28T05:56:47.606+10:00Our new pal is so determined to reject the science...Our new pal is so determined to reject the science that he will adopt any stance, no matter how puerile, that suits the moment. And he claims its the scientists who are showing bias. If he wants to find bias he only has to look in the mirror. I'm not sure whether its his idiocy or hypocrisy that offends me more.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65116579546982507532015-07-28T05:42:06.864+10:002015-07-28T05:42:06.864+10:00My response to the climate science is biased meme ...My response to the climate science is biased meme is to say that it certainly is - biased in favour of the truth.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67854486803984086242015-07-28T04:41:10.608+10:002015-07-28T04:41:10.608+10:00More insinuations that climate science is 'bia...More insinuations that climate science is 'biased' and somehow untrustworthy. <br /><br />Self-serving politicised denialist bollocks for which not a single shred of evidence actually exists.<br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22480321155220165342015-07-28T00:39:29.607+10:002015-07-28T00:39:29.607+10:00This is a Poe, isn't it?This is a Poe, isn't it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-122375361641472382015-07-27T21:17:27.339+10:002015-07-27T21:17:27.339+10:00"We know it is getting warmer because we can ..."We know it is getting warmer because we can see how severe this drought is."<br /><br />We know it is getting warmer because measuring temperature tells us that is so. Were you really trying for the stupidest denier comment ever? Seriously: how do you come up with the idea I could say the world is 0.7C hotter because there's a drought in California?<br /><br />I do see some circularity. It exists entirely in your mind.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88633655970259147412015-07-27T13:13:21.290+10:002015-07-27T13:13:21.290+10:00Sorry BBD, Victor, I did not make my point very cl...Sorry BBD, Victor, I did not make my point very clearly.<br /><br />In regard to <i>"...but my aversion to adjusted data comes from seeing people get exactly the result that was wanted. Results not readily apparent before adjustments...." </i> I was actually referring to trial work I have seen in different fields. Not necessarily deliberately creating the result, more a case of cleaning up messy data with a clear preconceived vision of what is <i>should</i> look like.<br /><br />I don't think climate scientists are likely to be deliberately crafting certain results, but think it is possible that similar bias to the above may potentially creep in to the mix.<br /><br />markeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10359585233700750782015-07-27T11:05:12.228+10:002015-07-27T11:05:12.228+10:00Millicent.
This is the circularity I see:
1. We k...Millicent.<br />This is the circularity I see:<br /><br />1. We know it is getting warmer because we can see how severe this drought is.<br />2. We know this drought is more severe than previous droughts because we know it is warmer. markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60832671454978919302015-07-27T09:04:01.137+10:002015-07-27T09:04:01.137+10:00Thanks for the nice comments.
What is interesting ...Thanks for the nice comments.<br />What is interesting is that I use RGB filters with my CCD detector to get a colour image. These data frames need to be corrected for bias and thermal noise of the detector. The noise of cosmic rays and satellites are eliminated by stacking and averaging many frames and rejecting outliers. The slight vignetting of the optic and dust also needs to be corrected with flats.<br />Even now the image is still linear and needs to be 'stretched' to be visible and pleasing to human vision which is logarithmic. <br />I am sure that a visual astronomer denier would say this image is not real! I have merely adjusted it to suit my agenda. He just cannot see this sort of detail and colour through his telescope! Bert<br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2746090881514967832015-07-27T06:57:17.720+10:002015-07-27T06:57:17.720+10:00Marke: "but my aversion to adjusted data come...Marke: "<i>but my aversion to adjusted data comes from seeing people get exactly the result that was wanted. Results not readily apparent before adjustments.</i>"<br /><br />That is interesting. Most people from your tribe think that climatologists are exaggerating the importance of climate change. Something with climatologists being politically of the wrong colour and writing up what Obama wants them to say (ignoring that politicians would much rather solve solvable problems). Just shows that they have no clue of how science works and what motivates scientists.<br /><br /><a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/02/homogenization-adjustments-reduce-global-warming.html" rel="nofollow">Or did you simply not know that climatologists reduce the amount of warming with their adjustments?</a>Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41848720760897640512015-07-27T04:59:24.531+10:002015-07-27T04:59:24.531+10:00but my aversion to adjusted data comes from seeing...<i>but my aversion to adjusted data comes from seeing people get exactly the result that was wanted. Results not readily apparent before adjustments.</i><br /><br />Nefarious intent paranoid conspiracy theorist crap. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4266190059469621762015-07-27T04:57:04.593+10:002015-07-27T04:57:04.593+10:00Marke
More drought in a warming world is a no-bra...Marke<br /><br />More drought in a warming world is a no-brainer. Trying to muddy the waters with arguments about fractional attribution is typical denialism pretending to be sciency. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83899937436763036502015-07-27T03:22:14.348+10:002015-07-27T03:22:14.348+10:00Nah, BBD, I really do. I hate running multi-factor...Nah, BBD, I really do. I hate running multi-factorial trials, whenever I can I run a simple treatment and control (well, maybe two treatments with the one control, but I hate overlapping treatments).<br /><br />That is probably more to do with my very basic grasp on statistics, but my aversion to adjusted data comes from seeing people get exactly the result that was wanted. Results not readily apparent before adjustments.<br /><br />I'm not really sure of my politics, now I am somewhere in the middle compared with my rightish wing younger days.<br /><br />markeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58121409100513026382015-07-27T03:04:56.058+10:002015-07-27T03:04:56.058+10:00Marke
As Sou has noted previously, I like my data...Marke<br /><br /><i>As Sou has noted previously, I like my data, and my science, to be dead simple.</i><br /><br />You like your science to align with your politics. We have met before, elsewhere, so you can shitcan the disingenuousness. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12413799321718103742015-07-27T02:55:56.212+10:002015-07-27T02:55:56.212+10:00That's marvelous, Bert. Thanks for posting.That's marvelous, Bert. Thanks for posting.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81002745461569474972015-07-27T01:20:18.094+10:002015-07-27T01:20:18.094+10:00You've framed the issue poorly IMO marke. The ...You've framed the issue poorly IMO marke. The question is not whether the Californian drought is proof that the world is warming. We already have ample evidence of that. In regard to the Californian drought, the question that scientists look at is the extent to which human activity has influenced it, and in what manner That is, how much different is this drought from what it might have been like if CO2 had remained at 280 ppm instead of 400ppm plus. (And what is the likelihood that there'd have been a drought - or how long it would have lasted, and factors like temperature, moisture etc)<br /><br />Different people have looked at this from different perspectives as the various papers I referred you to have shown.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55464967693822587332015-07-27T01:14:02.865+10:002015-07-27T01:14:02.865+10:00May I answer that? Drought is a product of water ...May I answer that? Drought is a product of water loss versus water gain. As the CO2 we have put in the air has made this planet 0.7C hotter then water loss is greater. So human activity certainly has an influence. <br /><br />I'd have thought anybody would know that. But then I suppose concern trolls have to pretend to know nothing in order to pursue their mission of FUD spreading. Mind you: as any fanboy straight from WUWT is unlikely to have picked up any real knowledge perhaps your ignorance is not merely feigned. Do please tell us if that is so.<br />Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53019038513880292752015-07-27T00:45:46.425+10:002015-07-27T00:45:46.425+10:00Thanks Sou, for addressing my point, and for the l...Thanks Sou, for addressing my point, and for the links.<br /><br />Griffin and Anchukaitis (2014) is a nice paper. But if the argument is that this current Californian drought is proof (of some degree) that the world is warming as per predictions, it seems to me there is a certain circularity in using this paper to support the argument.<br /><br />Griffin and Anchukaitis (2014) (GA2014) tells us, according to their assessment,<i> "... the 2012–2014 drought is the worst in our combined NOAA-NADA estimate and 2014 is the single most arid case in at least the last 1200 years..." </i><br /><br />This is based on the use of the PDSI (Palmer Drought Severity Index) which is based on estimated soil moisture content. Which, in the case of this index, is calculated by using known precipitation, soil and temperature data. (in the case of GA2014, using instrumental data for recent times, and paleodata for the earlier years). It is apparent that calculated soil moisture data in 'paleo-data' must be calculated from the temperature and rainfall proxy data.<br /><br />In the article they state (in regard to precipitation data). <i>Over the last 1200 years, we estimate that there are 37 occurrences of 3 year droughts and a total of 66 uninterrupted dry periods (e.g., every year below the 800 to 2014 mean) lasting between 3 and 9 years. We estimate that ∼44% of 3 year droughts go on to last 4 years or longer...."</i> but, taking the paleoclimate temperature data into account, they then go on to state <i>.. In terms of cumulative severity, it is the worst drought on record (−14.55 cumulative PDSI), more extreme than longer (4 to 9 year) droughts. Considering only drought episodes defined by at least three consecutive years all lower than −2 PDSI, only three such events occur in the last 1200 years, and 2012–2014 is the most severe of these.</i><br /><br />Further: <i> However, (rainfall) deficits in 2014 are less severe than those reconstructed during punctuated dry periods in the late sixteenth (1571, 1580, and 1585), eighteenth (1721, 1765, 1782, and 1795), or nineteenth (1829, 1864, 1877, and 1898) centuries (Figure 2c). Moderately greater precipitation deficits were also reconstructed during the instrumental period (1934, 1961, 1990, and 2002).</i><br /><br /><br /><b>In summary, </b>if the point is that this Californian drought is proof of a warming world, and note that the precipitation data (used here, and assumed, for the sake of this discussion, to be accurate) is not unusual or out of normal range, then stating the current drought is significant in the context of AGW, is using the paleo temperature proxies to support the evidence that the paleo temperature data is correct and the planet is indeed warming as per predictions and modelling.<br /><br />Other notes:<br />The PDSI chart (bottom chart, Fig 1, from the year 800 to 2014, that is, by eyeball, a pretty variable dataset. Also, by eyeball, I can see at least 20 or so cases where the PDSI is lower (worse) than the line showing the 2014 level. However in their Figure 4 showing PDSI vs Rainfall (only from 1293 to 2014) the 2014 figure is alone in its level. <br /><br />The precipitation paleodata (tree rings) used here correlated well with the instrument data used (1920–2014) (R2 = 0.82). Assuming the paleo temperature data correlated similarly with the available temperature instrumental data, even ignoring the likelihood of autocorrelation for the various tree ring datasets used (temperature proxies reflecting some rainfall effects, and vice versa) combining two sets of proxy data in an index must increase the uncertainty of the calculated index.<br /><br />The PDSI uses the Thornthwaite method of estimating PET and ... <i> There are approximately 50 methods or models available to estimate PET, but these methods or models give inconsistent values due to their different assumptions and input data requirements, or because they were often developed for specific climatic regions (Grismer et al., 2002).</i>.<br /><br />marke<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81111076501444841772015-07-27T00:32:18.561+10:002015-07-27T00:32:18.561+10:00Oops... PG...Oops... PG...markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85923697689223799962015-07-27T00:31:12.778+10:002015-07-27T00:31:12.778+10:00PH, are you saying there are clear and visible ant...PH, are you saying there <i>are</i> clear and visible anthropogenic influences on this Californian drought?markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54996829254105202102015-07-27T00:30:10.829+10:002015-07-27T00:30:10.829+10:00You probably mean Bob Tisdale. Sorry about that, I...You probably mean Bob Tisdale. Sorry about that, I should have been more explicit. <br /><br />Bob's qualifications are not formal. He's what you might call a qualified pseudo-scientist. A WUWT quack. He claims competence in downloading data from KNMI Climate Explorer and plotting charts. He claims to understand what he's plotting but rarely shows any evidence that he has the first clue. He has some understanding of the mechanics of ENSO, but nothing like the level of expertise he thinks he has. And he doesn't understand any of the science of climate. He uses Anthony Watts blog to sell tedious, mostly indecipherable, and very long pdf files. <br /><br />Bob is a greenhouse effect denier who suffers from Dunning-Kruger syndrome. (You'll have to look it up.)<br /><br />You can search for articles about his "work" using the search bar at the top of this page.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28686284478801972962015-07-27T00:26:20.430+10:002015-07-27T00:26:20.430+10:00Hi All,
My position is clear, as I have stated her...Hi All,<br />My position is clear, as I have stated here previously.<br /><br /><br />I accept the physics involved, accept the role of CO2 as a heat trapping gas, but query whether 'we' understand the whole system, feedbacks etc well enough, and query the accuracy and precision of short and long term instrumental and proxy data sets and all the adjusting therein.<br />As Sou has noted previously, I like my data, and my science, to be dead simple.<br /><br />I also query 'the market' concepts of controlling CO2 emissions. What works brilliantly on a small scale, traded between users in one economy (sulphur emissions and poer stations) does not necessarily translate well to a situation of myriad sources, multi layered economies, multiple different economies and markets, different employment rates, skill and education levels, and with the World Bank and the UN as middlemen in spite of ' expert' assurances that it will. ( hey, why does the Euro suddenly spring to mind?)<br />markehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06387629308058823374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91363412912190237452015-07-27T00:07:46.284+10:002015-07-27T00:07:46.284+10:00What's so tough about understanding about natu...What's so tough about understanding about natural variability being impacted by the warming of the entire system. <br /><br />Oh yeah, when one's goal is to remain stupid - it's easy.<br />The know-nothings have it.<br />Can't wait to see USA's Republican Presidential candidates debate AGW.citizenschallengehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559990934735912814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-72661442053301848392015-07-26T23:58:48.728+10:002015-07-26T23:58:48.728+10:00Does anyone know who Mike Tisdale is and what his ...Does anyone know who Mike Tisdale is and what his qualifications are? Can't fund any expert of any sort under his name. UncleLewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14743934891000061863noreply@blogger.com