'The forecast is for continued global warming largely driven by continued high levels of greenhouse gases. However, other changes in the climate system, including the largest El Niño since 1997 and longer term shifts in both the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), are also contributing. Near record temperatures are predicted for the coming five years, consistent with the Met Office annual global temperature forecast. However, the recent run of consecutive record years is likely to end in 2017 as El Niño declines. '

'Nevertheless, the recent slowdown in surface warming is still an active research topic and trends over a longer (15 year) period will take longer to respond. For further discussion on the surface warming slowdown see the Met Office reports on the recent pause in warming and on big changes underway in the climate system.'

So CO2 is still increasing but we are not expecting consecutive  record years.

Natural Variability?
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

Phase Change??

Is not phase change natural variation?

The Met office has fallen flat on its face before putting their trust in climate scientists.


Quote:

The skillful predictions of climate science Smith et al (2007): 0.3°C in 10 years In 2007, a team of climate scientists from the UK Met Office led by Doug Smith wrote a paper “Improved Surface Temperature Prediction for the Coming Decade from a Global Climate Model”, published in the journal Science.  Although published in 2007, the paper made predictions for the decade 2004-2014. (Presumably the work was started around 2004 and it took some time for the paper to be published). The paper made claims about the “skill” of the model, for example “Having established the predictive skill of DePreSys…” The Smith et al paper made the following specific predictions: ◾There would be 0.3°C warming over the decade 2004-2014 ◾At least half of the years after 2009 would be warmer than the record year of 1998. Note that at that time, 2007, the warmest year was thought to be 1998; subsequent adjustments to the method made 2005 warmer than 1998. The predictions were spread far and wide. They were included in a Met Office Press release, and a glossy brochure on “Informing Government policy into the future”, with the almost obligatory scaremongering background pictures of black clouds and people wearing facemasks.  Vicky Pope gave a talk on these predictions, saying that “these are very strong statements about what will happen over the next 10 years.” And of course the faithful media reported the story without questioning it. These predictions have turned out to be wrong.  We are almost into 2014 and there has been no warming at all since 2004. Of the years since 2009,  none of them have broken the record of 1998 according to HADCRUT3 data. Using HADCRUT4, 2010 is warmer by a meaningless 0.01°C (that’s one tenth of the error estimate). 2011 and 2012 were cooler and it’s now clear that 2013 will be cooler also. The warming prediction was for  0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)], so unless we get some significant warming over the next few months it looks as though the observations will be outside the CI of the model. https://ipccreport.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/the-skillful-predictions-of-climate-science/

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Is not phase change natural variation?

Lol, you're a friggin joke!

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 5:26pm:

Is not phase change natural variation?

'We could precisely identify three climate state transition regions that are associated with phase transitions in standing tropical and extratropical Rossby waves. We confirm that the climate on fast-rotating planets may assume multiple states (Prot ≤ 12 d for RP = 2REarth). Our study is, however, the first to identify the type of planetary wave associated with different climate states: the first state is dominated by standing tropical Rossby waves with fast equatorial superrotation. The second state is dominated by standing extratropical Rossby waves with high-latitude westerly jets with slower wind speeds. For very fast rotations (Prot ≤ 5 d for RP = 2REarth), we find another climate state transition, where the standing tropical and extratropical Rossby wave can both fit on the planet. Thus, a third state with a mixture of the two planetary waves becomes possible that exhibits three jets. '

http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/453/3/2412

Seems that the answer is yes.

lee wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 6:41pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 5:26pm: Is not phase change natural variation? 'We could precisely identify three climate state transition regions that are associated with phase transitions in standing tropical and extratropical Rossby waves. We confirm that the climate on fast-rotating planets may assume multiple states (Prot ≤ 12 d for RP = 2REarth). Our study is, however, the first to identify the type of planetary wave associated with different climate states: the first state is dominated by standing tropical Rossby waves with fast equatorial superrotation. The second state is dominated by standing extratropical Rossby waves with high-latitude westerly jets with slower wind speeds. For very fast rotations (Prot ≤ 5 d for RP = 2REarth), we find another climate state transition, where the standing tropical and extratropical Rossby wave can both fit on the planet. Thus, a third state with a mixture of the two planetary waves becomes possible that exhibits three jets. ' http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/453/3/2412 Seems that the answer is yes.

Seems like you are mixing up your nomenclatures for the purposes of simplistic propaganda.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I win the internet again, cheers  ;)

'      phase change - a change from one state (solid or liquid or gas) to another without a change in chemical composition
phase transition, physical change, state change
freeze, freezing - the withdrawal of heat to change something from a liquid to a solid
liquefaction - the conversion of a solid or a gas into a liquid
natural action, natural process, action, activity - a process existing in or produced by nature (rather than by the intent of human beings); "the action of natural forces"; "volcanic activity"
melt, melting, thaw, thawing - the process whereby heat changes something from a solid to a liquid; "the power failure caused a refrigerator melt that was a disaster"; "the thawing of a frozen turkey takes several hours"
evaporation, vaporisation, vaporization, vapour, vapor - the process of becoming a vapor'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phase+change

Please show where you think it is merely a product of AGW/CC.

Where are the theoretical and computer models that predict static or declining global temperatures as Carbon Dioxide levels rise in the earth's atmosphere?

Surely there is one model out there can be paid for and squeezed out by the Fossil fuel industry?

Of course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW.

We are only left with flat earthers, child haters and denialist lunatics - a small proportion of society, but nevertheless still swimming in their pathetic neurotic pit of putrid excrement - a sludge of their own making

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

f course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW.

Yes, they just don't accept that it is measurable, the extent to which CO2 may modify climate.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 5:00pm:

Where are the theoretical and computer models that predict static or declining global temperatures as Carbon Dioxide levels rise in the earth's atmosphere? Surely there is one model out there can be paid for and squeezed out by the Fossil fuel industry? Of course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW. We are only left with flat earthers, child haters and denialist lunatics - a small proportion of society, but nevertheless still swimming in their pathetic neurotic pit of putrid excrement - a sludge of their own making

Don't need models hairy arse, observations have proven the theory you worship wrong.

Now apologize and self ban for 24 hours for spreading your lies.

http://i66.tinypic.com/28kt1d0.png

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:11pm:

So CO2 is still increasing but we are not expecting consecutive  record years.

Surely you weren't expecting a geometrically perfect increase in temperature each year? There are lots of other climatic variables such as el nino.
The TREND however will be continued warming.

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:00pm: f course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW. Yes, they just don't accept that it is measurable, the extent to which CO2 may modify climate.

BACK TO THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE FOR ANOTHER 50 BILLION PAGES: I LOVE CIRCLE WORK YUMMY YUMMY IN MY ******  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :-?  ;) ;)

__> CUM GET MY SUM SUM  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) <_____

Ajax wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 5:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:00pm: Where are the theoretical and computer models that predict static or declining global temperatures as Carbon Dioxide levels rise in the earth's atmosphere? Surely there is one model out there can be paid for and squeezed out by the Fossil fuel industry? Of course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW. We are only left with flat earthers, child haters and denialist lunatics - a small proportion of society, but nevertheless still swimming in their pathetic neurotic pit of putrid excrement - a sludge of their own making Don't need models hairy arse, observations have proven the theory you worship wrong. Now apologize and self ban for 24 hours for spreading your lies. http://i66.tinypic.com/28kt1d0.png

LINK, CHEERS  :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

Surely you weren't expecting a geometrically perfect increase in temperature each year? There are lots of other climatic variables such as el nino. The TREND however will be continued warming.

But the father of global warming, James Hansen, said natural variability couldn't explain the temperature increase in his address to Congress in 1988.

Now apparently, natural variability can explain the slowdown, or 'hiatus' per IPCC.

You want it both ways. It can't address rapidly increasing temperatures, but it can address a slowdown in rapidly increasing temperatures. CO2 is still going up, it hasn't paused.

You are prognosticating on the trend. What means are you using? Ouija board?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:21pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:00pm: f course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW. Yes, they just don't accept that it is measurable, the extent to which CO2 may modify climate. BACK TO THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE FOR ANOTHER 50 BILLION PAGES: I LOVE CIRCLE WORK YUMMY YUMMY IN MY ******  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :-?  ;) ;) __> CUM GET MY SUM SUM  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) <_____

Please show where the fossil fuel industry predicts a rate of change in potential climate increase.

..people died for this  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

[quote author=Deathridesahorse link=1454476308/16#16 date=1454896347]..people died for this  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[/quote]

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 8^th, 2016 at 11:52am:

[quote author=Deathridesahorse link=1454476308/16#16 date=1454896347]..people died for this  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[/quote]

:'(

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:05pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:15am: Surely you weren't expecting a geometrically perfect increase in temperature each year? There are lots of other climatic variables such as el nino. The TREND however will be continued warming. But the father of global warming, James Hansen, said natural variability couldn't explain the temperature increase in his address to Congress in 1988. Now apparently, natural variability can explain the slowdown, or 'hiatus' per IPCC. You want it both ways. It can't address rapidly increasing temperatures, but it can address a slowdown in rapidly increasing temperatures. CO2 is still going up, it hasn't paused.

Its because we are talking about different time scales.
In general a climate measurement is taken over a 30 year period as it that is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends.

The "slowdown" really only lasted 15 years so that is  short enough to be  considered natural variation. The warming trend however has lasted 100 years which is too long to be natural variability.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2016 at 3:11pm:

Natural Variability?

Lee, I am curious.
One minute you are claiming that any warming is due to natural variation the next you reverse your position and claim that scientists are fudging figures to create warming that isnt there.

So what is your position?
- do you believe that the Earth is warming but it is due to natural variation? or
- do you believe that the Earth isn't warming and the scientists are merely fudging the  figures?

You can't have it both ways

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

The "slowdown" really only lasted 15 years so that is  short enough to be  considered natural variation. The warming trend however has lasted 100 years which is too long to be natural variability.

Yet the IPCC says that rhe AGW is only measureable in the 2hd half of the 20th century, so you can't claim the early 20th century warming.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:29pm: The "slowdown" really only lasted 15 years so that is  short enough to be  considered natural variation. The warming trend however has lasted 100 years which is too long to be natural variability. Yet the IPCC says that rhe AGW is only measureable in the 2hd half of the 20th century, so you can't claim the early 20th century warming.

^{go logic: yay vote for copper internet today- we sell lifestyles and stuff  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)}

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2016 at 3:11pm: Natural Variability? Lee, I am curious. One minute you are claiming that any warming is due to natural variation the next you reverse your position and claim that scientists are fudging figures to create warming that isnt there. So what is your position? - do you believe that the Earth is warming but it is due to natural variation? or - do you believe that the Earth isn't warming and the scientists are merely fudging the  figures? You can't have it both ways

...if daddy is willing crack smokers can win  :D :D :D :D :D

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

Lee, I am curious. One minute you are claiming that any warming is due to natural variation the next you reverse your position and claim that scientists are fudging figures to create warming that isnt there. So what is your position? - do you believe that the Earth is warming but it is due to natural variation? or - do you believe that the Earth isn't warming and the scientists are merely fudging the  figures?

I am not claiming anything. The records show we have been warming since the last ice age. CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. The problem is by how much. The IPCC says approximately half the warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century is due to CO2.

However, the models are showing too much warming. That means the models are wrong. That means the parametrisations are wrong.

And it is a fact that NASA/GISS/NOAA have adjusted the temperatures.

It is also a fact that BoM have adjusted temperatures.

That means it can be both natural and scientists fudging the figures. They are not mutually exclusive.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

lee wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 3:05pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 11:15am: Surely you weren't expecting a geometrically perfect increase in temperature each year? There are lots of other climatic variables such as el nino. The TREND however will be continued warming. But the father of global warming, James Hansen, said natural variability couldn't explain the temperature increase in his address to Congress in 1988. Now apparently, natural variability can explain the slowdown, or 'hiatus' per IPCC. You want it both ways. It can't address rapidly increasing temperatures, but it can address a slowdown in rapidly increasing temperatures. CO2 is still going up, it hasn't paused. Its because we are talking about different time scales. In general a climate measurement is taken over a 30 year period as it that is long enough to filter out any interannual variation or anomalies, but also short enough to be able to show longer climatic trends. The "slowdown" really only lasted 15 years so that is  short enough to be  considered natural variation. The warming trend however has lasted 100 years which is too long to be natural variability.

The "slowdown" melted ice:  :D :D

Complex systems can't be measured by one indicator  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Put it this way: if the indicator measuring global sea ice stops getting rythmically sinusoidal we're all buggerred but that won't happen as the revolution won't be broadcast... anarchy will happen! There will be no more graphs to peruse... 7 billion people will change on their own indicators making everyone react to different indicators  :-? :-? :-? :-? :-? :-?

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 9:41pm: Lee, I am curious. One minute you are claiming that any warming is due to natural variation the next you reverse your position and claim that scientists are fudging figures to create warming that isnt there. So what is your position? - do you believe that the Earth is warming but it is due to natural variation? or - do you believe that the Earth isn't warming and the scientists are merely fudging the  figures? I am not claiming anything. The records show we have been warming since the last ice age. CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature. The problem is by how much. The IPCC says approximately half the warming in the 2nd half of the 20th century is due to CO2. However, the models are showing too much warming. That means the models are wrong. That means the parametrisations are wrong. And it is a fact that NASA/GISS/NOAA have adjusted the temperatures. It is also a fact that BoM have adjusted temperatures. That means it can be both natural and scientists fudging the figures. They are not mutually exclusive.

No error values makes your logic purposely deceiptful.

It is the very reason scientific method is always associated with error value  ;)

IT'S KNOWN AS UNQUANTIFIED ARGUMENT AND IS USED BY FLIM FLAM MEN  :D :D :D :D :D

lee should apologise to malcolm

no doubt about it.

exposed again

running away again

lee wrote on Feb 7^th, 2016 at 3:10pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 7th, 2016 at 2:22pm: lee wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:21pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 5th, 2016 at 5:00pm: f course we all know that even the fossil fuel industry accepts the science that underpins AGW. Yes, they just don't accept that it is measurable, the extent to which CO2 may modify climate. BACK TO THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE FOR ANOTHER 50 BILLION PAGES: I LOVE CIRCLE WORK YUMMY YUMMY IN MY ******  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :-?  ;) ;) __> CUM GET MY SUM SUM  ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) <_____ Please show where the fossil fuel industry predicts a rate of change in potential climate increase.

Do some research on the matter.

It has been over a decade that the large fossil fuel and mining corporations of the world made a joint statement to the effect "....the planet has been warming due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the effects on the climate and other systems" (paraphrasing here, but you get the drift lee, dont you - or are scurrying away to consult with Dr Sircus?)

you must apologise

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:19pm:

It has been over a decade that the large fossil fuel and mining corporations of the world made a joint statement to the effect "....the planet has been warming due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the effects on the climate and other systems" (paraphrasing here,

Yes definitely paraphrasing. ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 10:19pm: It has been over a decade that the large fossil fuel and mining corporations of the world made a joint statement to the effect "....the planet has been warming due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the effects on the climate and other systems" (paraphrasing here, Yes definitely paraphrasing. ;D ;D ;D

oh looky: lee wants more precision presumably with some associated error value  :D

<snap, servant: we need some more precision and some of that error value thingy pronto !!>

:o

<<mummys orders, I've told you before I won't be afraid to bring out the big guns and such...  :D :D :D :D>>

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:34pm:

oh looky: lee wants more precision presumably with some associated error value

He's the one making the claim.

Lee,

-You are incapable of a simple arithmetic calculation. I gave you three chances to redeem yourself.

-You obviously don't understand the Earth's Carbon Balance

-You don't understand what the Southern Oscillation Index is, and you confuse what its predictive value is. 

-When faced with the basic technical details of radiative forcing, you abandon the thread only to start a new one

-The only technical material you can discuss is what you glean from denialist blogs. (without actually understanding it)

-You don't read original papers

-You fail to understand the difference between Significance Levels and Confidence Intervals


In short, you are really not in a position to demand precision data from anybody.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

In short, you are really not in a position to demand precision data from anybody.

When is an attributable quote "precision"?

So tell me do you agree with Stephens at al 2012, and the attendant error bars? If not, why not.

What do you understand to be the difference between precision and accuracy?

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 10:19pm: It has been over a decade that the large fossil fuel and mining corporations of the world made a joint statement to the effect "....the planet has been warming due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the effects on the climate and other systems" (paraphrasing here, Yes definitely paraphrasing. ;D ;D ;D

Where does precision or accuracy come? Should Chimp be accurate or precise?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

What do you understand to be the difference between precision and accuracy?

Accuracy - Instrumental or Human error in reading?

Instrumental - has error bars. eg Dry bulb thermometer +/-0.5C, Thermistor +/-0.1ºC
Although there is some doubt on the accuracy of digital devices.

'One reason for the perceived warming, Hager says, is traced back to a change in measurement instrumentation. He says glass thermometers were was replaced by much more sensitive electronic instruments in 1995. Hager tells the SZ (my emphasis):

    For eight years I conducted parallel measurements at Lechfeld. The result was that compared to the glass thermometers, the electronic thermometers showed on average  a temperature that was 0.9°C warmer. Thus we are comparing – even though we are measuring the temperature here – apples and oranges. No one is told that.”

Hager confirms to the AZ that the higher temperatures are indeed an artifact of the new instruments.'

http://notrickszone.com/2015/01/12/university-of-augsburg-44-year-veteran-meteorologist-calls-climate-protection-ridiculous-a-deception/#sthash.W4pxipKf.dpuf 

Original in German\-

http://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Meteorologe-findet-Diskussion-um-Klimaschutz-laecherlich-id32569342.html

Human error = who can tell?

When merging datasets we should use the wider error bars. We cannot adjust for human error.

Precision - Averaging temperatures to tighter error bars.e.g.  the two datasets in glass thermometers and digital and coming up with errors to 1/100's of a degree. e.g NOAA who seem to always confuse accuracy with precision.

An interesting article at Watts

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/

I'll interpret that response as you "don't know". It's really quite simple:

I'll just resize this picture.

---

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

I'll interpret that response as you "don't know". It's really quite simple: I'll just resize this picture.

You just proved you know nothing about accuracy or precision.

Your pistol shooting also needs work.

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

CO2, all other things being equal, will tend to increase the temperature.

That is actually the definition of human induced climate change





lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 9:50pm:

And it is a fact that NASA/GISS/NOAA have adjusted the temperatures. It is also a fact that BoM have adjusted temperatures.

Of course they have. It is a scientifically accepted practice. In fact it is necessary to ensure that the data stays consistent. Temperature homogenisation can be necessary for a range of reasons: sometimes stations move, instruments or reporting practices change, or surrounding trees or buildings at a site are altered.

Interestingly if the data wasn't homogenised the raw data actually shows GREATER global warming (mostly due to the heat island effect)

http://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

The climate denying blogs however dishonestly cherry pick only the weather stations that have been homogenised UP, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the weather stations have been homogenised DOWN.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

Of course they have. It is a scientifically accepted practice. In fact it is necessary to ensure that the data stays consistent. Temperature homogenisation can be necessary for a range of reasons: sometimes stations move, instruments or reporting practices change, or surrounding trees or buildings at a site are altered.

If the instruments are faulty or they change sites it is better to have them as a new site. IF there is a change in instrument or site there may be a step change in temperature. IF there is a step change in temperature it may be feasible to adjust the temperature for that change, but it is not preferred. It would be a constant, it would be noted as to the size and for the reason for the adjustment. To homogenise data because there is no report, or because it is deemed one reading is inconsistent is not correct. Ad hoc adjustments are not correct.

'The Forum noted that the extent to which the development of the ACORN-SAT dataset from the raw data could be automated was likely to be limited, and that the process might better be described as a supervised process in which the roles of metadata and other information required some level of expertise and operator intervention. The Forum investigated the nature of the operator intervention required and the bases on which such decisions are made and concluded that very detailed instructions from the Bureau are likely to be necessary for an end-user who wishes to reproduce the ACORN-SAT findings. Some such details are provided in Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) technical reports (e.g. use of 40 best-correlated sites for adjustments, thresholds for adjustment, and so on); however, the Forum concluded that it is likely to remain the case that several choices within the adjustment process remain a matter of expert judgment and appropriate disciplinary knowledge.'

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/acorn-sat/documents/2015_TAF_report.pdf

So the "scientifically accepted practice" is to make adjustments that are not replicable?

I was taught if it is not replicable it is not science.


The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

That is actually the definition of human induced climate change

Are all other things equal?


The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:57am:

Interestingly if the data wasn't homogenised the raw data actually shows GREATER global warming (mostly due to the heat island effect)

Did you read this?

'Mapping urban heat islands of arctic cities using combined data on field measurements and satellite images based on the example of the city of Apatity (Murmansk Oblast)'

' Calculations of the surface layer temperature have been made based on the surface temperature data obtained from satellite images. The experimental data on air temperature were obtained as a result of expeditionary meteorological observations, and the experimental data on surface temperature were obtained based on the data of the space hyperspectral Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) system, channels 31 and 32 (10.78–11.28 and 11.77–12.27 micrometers, respectively). As a result of the analysis of temperature fields, an intensive heat island (up to 3.2°C) has been identified that was estimated based on the underlying surface temperature, and its mean intensity over the observation period significantly exceeds the representative data for European cities in winter. '

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS000143381509011X#/page-1

UHI from heating the buildings escaping to the atmosphere. Now you know where GISS gets the red for the Arctic.

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 10:44am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 10:34pm: oh looky: lee wants more precision presumably with some associated error value He's the one making the claim.

You claimed he was paraphrasing!  ;) ;)

lee wrote on Feb 11^th, 2016 at 10:28pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 11th, 2016 at 10:19pm: It has been over a decade that the large fossil fuel and mining corporations of the world made a joint statement to the effect "....the planet has been warming due to human activities, and urgent action is needed to mitigate the effects on the climate and other systems" (paraphrasing here, Yes definitely paraphrasing. ;D ;D ;D

i could have left it as a direct quote lee - but I dont work like you and Jethro do. I try to be honest with my public posts in this temple of intellectual worship.

Your job is to find the PRECISE quote made by the international fossil fuel and mining corporate community with regards to the science of AGW and what should be done about it.

Surely you don't expect me to do all of your work?

You cant survive by merely viewing jethro's videos.

Now get a move on, and be very ACCURATE with your posts in future

Be accurate and precise lee

;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D 8-)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 11:59am:

You claimed he was paraphrasing!

Nope as you can see Chimp SAID he was paraphrasing.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 12:09pm:

i could have left it as a direct quote lee - but I dont work like you and Jethro do. I try to be honest with my public posts in this temple of intellectual worship. Your job is to find the PRECISE quote made by the international fossil fuel and mining corporate community with regards to the science of AGW and what should be done about it. Surely you don't expect me to do all of your work?

No I expect you to do your own work.

lee wrote on Feb 12^th, 2016 at 8:34pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 12th, 2016 at 8:13pm: I'll interpret that response as you "don't know". It's really quite simple: I'll just resize this picture. You just proved you know nothing about accuracy or precision. Your pistol shooting also needs work.

You can't be helped. There is no point in discussing the finer points of papers with you when you don't (refuse to) even understand the basics.

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 11:49am:

So the "scientifically accepted practice" is to make adjustments that are not replicable? I was taught if it is not replicable it is not science.

hahahaha  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

That old chestnut again. You really have been reading too many psuedo scientific AGW denial blogs.

Data can never be replicated (unless you have a time machine). It is the results  that have to be repeatable for it to be science.

So we can call that  "if it is not replicable it is not science." just another example of the dishonesty of the global warming deniers.

It is not the data which needs to be repeatable, it is the results that need to be.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 12:45pm:

You can't be helped. There is no point in discussing the finer points of papers with you when you don't (refuse to) even understand the basics.

You mean the basics like error bars in Huang and Karl? Significance 0.10?

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

Data can never be replicated (unless you have a time machine). It is the results  that have to be repeatable for it to be science.

Right. Now show how BoM can replicate adjustments (the results). Adjustments are not the data.

How can BoM repeat an adjustment, the expert judgment, the person's thought processes?

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:29pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: Data can never be replicated (unless you have a time machine). It is the results  that have to be repeatable for it to be science. Right. Now show how BoM can replicate adjustments (the results). Adjustments are not the data. How can BoM repeat an adjustment, the expert judgment, the person's thought processes?

is taking into account for "background noise" or vibrations etc, an adjustment of the raw data?

corrections and adjustments are an integral part of the measurement and detection process. They occur in all areas of science. Your GPS system would be inaccurate to the tune of kilometers if it wasnt ADJUSTED for relativistic effects.

are you suggesting Climate Scientists and any scientific professionals involved in climate science are forbidden under "lee's" LAW to make adjustments?

Apologise and self ban

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:40pm:

is taking into account for "background noise" or vibrations etc, an adjustment of the raw data? corrections and adjustments are an integral part of the measurement and detection process. They occur in all areas of science.

The argument was about replication.

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 4:40pm: is taking into account for "background noise" or vibrations etc, an adjustment of the raw data? corrections and adjustments are an integral part of the measurement and detection process. They occur in all areas of science. The argument was about replication.

your level of deceit in this forum requires an apology and an appropriate self banishment period.

Dont try and weasel your way out of your little predicament now.

just apologise and leave for 48 hours

The anthropogenic global warming train has greased many departments.

It's really sad to what lengths these departments go to, to keep their heads above water.

http://i65.tinypic.com/ztt7vb.jpg

Read the rest here
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/

Oh dear if it isnt good old sooky sooky batman.

Tell everyone in here how much money is used to lubricate the fossil fuel industry, the power sectors and the transport industry. ;D

Compare it to the money spent on climate change and alternative energy.  :D

Why do world governments hand over nearly half a trillion dollars every year to the fossil fuel and mining sectors as subsidies and grants??

Poor oil and coal industry -  it needs the tax payer to foot a lot of its bills and then doesnt take any responsibility for any of the damage it inflicts on human health and the environment.

Poor poor sooky sooky batman he needs to defend the poor old fossil fuel industry.

https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 4:24pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 12:45pm: You can't be helped. There is no point in discussing the finer points of papers with you when you don't (refuse to) even understand the basics. You mean the basics like error bars in Huang and Karl? Significance 0.10?

I mean the basics like precision and accuracy, which you have yet to master.

Ajax wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 5:27pm:

l]http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/[/url]

So you don't believe that data should be processed in any way shape or form?  ;D

- Not even to remove known effects that have nothing to do with what you are attempting to measure?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

I mean the basics like precision and accuracy, which you have yet to master.

Yes, but accuracy includes error bars. And you showed in your picture that your grasp of accuracy and precision is limited to static targets.

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:30pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 6:08pm: I mean the basics like precision and accuracy, which you have yet to master. Yes, but accuracy includes error bars. And you showed in your picture that your grasp of accuracy and precision is limited to static targets.

groan (headpalm)

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:08pm:

groan (headpalm)

I can;t help it your so dense.

I was tempted to quote that last post of yours and add it to my signature, but you wouldn't get it.

"Accuracy includes error bars." Interesting.

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:17pm:

"Accuracy includes error bars." Interesting.

You're right, Not well expressed. How can a thing that is accurate have error bars? You're right. Huang and Karl are just not accurate.

What is the usual number of standard deviations?

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:28pm:

What is the usual number of standard deviations?

How much certainty do you want?

Higgs particle detection at CERN required 5 standard deviations

I would if lee will devote his entire life denouncing the existence of the Higgs Particle?

Or will lee merely focus on his hatred for the bulk of the world's children?

Only time will tell ladies and gentlemen

Only time will tell.

In the meantime lee needs to apologise to at least 4 posters on Ozpolotic.

Hey hairy arse I've said it before and i'll say it again, I don't care for our government greasing the oil industry.

If the oil and gas companies don't like it, that is our governments stop giving them grants they can ferk off and our government can take over, same goes for mining.

The infrastructure is there so are the workers, all that is needed is a CEO and board of directors to run the show.

Of course non of these will earn more than our PM.

Its the wealth of this nation and therefore the peoples wealth, its not for sharing amongst a few greedy men at the expense of the Australian citizen.

Now you should apologise and self ban for 24 hours for wanting to financially enslave every Australian and their children and children's children for EVER paying taxes on the air we breath to the united nations all base on a false science that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.


Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

Oh dear if it isnt good old sooky sooky batman. Tell everyone in here how much money is used to lubricate the fossil fuel industry, the power sectors and the transport industry. ;D Compare it to the money spent on climate change and alternative energy.  :D Why do world governments hand over nearly half a trillion dollars every year to the fossil fuel and mining sectors as subsidies and grants?? Poor oil and coal industry -  it needs the tax payer to foot a lot of its bills and then doesnt take any responsibility for any of the damage it inflicts on human health and the environment. Poor poor sooky sooky batman he needs to defend the poor old fossil fuel industry. https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Ajax wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 5:27pm: l]http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/[/url] So you don't believe that data should be processed in any way shape or form?  ;D - Not even to remove known effects that have nothing to do with what you are attempting to measure?

Well professor I think they would have adjusted for any phenomenon that may affect the data to start with so why adjust again...???

That is the big question.....?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 10:29pm:

Higgs particle detection at CERN required 5 standard deviations I would if lee will devote his entire life denouncing the existence of the Higgs Particle? Or will lee merely focus on his hatred for the bulk of the world's children? Only time will tell ladies and gentlemen Only time will tell. In the meantime lee needs to apologise to at least 4 posters on Ozpolotic.

The higgs particle was found in 2013, AGW is much older than that, the science was never based on the higgs particle.

So what is your point.......??????

Ajax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 12:13pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 6:10pm: Ajax wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 5:27pm: l]http://joannenova.com.au/2015/08/the-bom-homogenizing-the-heck-out-of-australian-temperature-records/[/url] So you don't believe that data should be processed in any way shape or form?  ;D - Not even to remove known effects that have nothing to do with what you are attempting to measure? Well professor I think they would have adjusted for any phenomenon that may affect the data to start with so why adjust again...??? That is the big question.....?

Where did "they" make this dastardly adjustment? In your imagination?

Ajax wrote on Feb 14^th, 2016 at 12:10pm:

Hey hairy arse I've said it before and i'll say it again, I don't care for our government greasing the oil industry. If the oil and gas companies don't like it, that is our governments stop giving them grants they can ferk off and our government can take over, same goes for mining. The infrastructure is there so are the workers, all that is needed is a CEO and board of directors to run the show. Of course non of these will earn more than our PM. Its the wealth of this nation and therefore the peoples wealth, its not for sharing amongst a few greedy men at the expense of the Australian citizen. Now you should apologise and self ban for 24 hours for wanting to financially enslave every Australian and their children and children's children for EVER paying taxes on the air we breath to the united nations all base on a false science that is Anthropogenic Global Warming. Chimp_Logic wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 6:01pm: Oh dear if it isnt good old sooky sooky batman. Tell everyone in here how much money is used to lubricate the fossil fuel industry, the power sectors and the transport industry. ;D Compare it to the money spent on climate change and alternative energy.  :D Why do world governments hand over nearly half a trillion dollars every year to the fossil fuel and mining sectors as subsidies and grants?? Poor oil and coal industry -  it needs the tax payer to foot a lot of its bills and then doesnt take any responsibility for any of the damage it inflicts on human health and the environment. Poor poor sooky sooky batman he needs to defend the poor old fossil fuel industry. https://ikttvs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/batman-crying.gif

bATMAN IS TALKING DOUBLE-DUTCH.... it aint a dying language for no reason I suppose  ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Feb 13^th, 2016 at 8:21pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 13th, 2016 at 8:17pm: "Accuracy includes error bars." Interesting. You're right, Not well expressed. How can a thing that is accurate have error bars? You're right. Huang and Karl are just not accurate.

It's called the uncertainty principle.. nothing can be measured accurately as it's all refined guesswork.

Hey, language is fun when everyones trippin' bALLS  ::) ::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 15^th, 2016 at 1:17am:

It's called the uncertainty principle.. nothing can be measured accurately as it's all refined guesswork. Hey, language is fun when everyones trippin' bALLS

Except in CAGW :D :D