tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post1685639540117578820..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Speaking of "Epic Fails"David Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-72742670593129397912013-06-15T15:28:28.082-07:002013-06-15T15:28:28.082-07:00A cooler Earth is much more to be feared than a wa...<i>A cooler Earth is much more to be feared than a warmer Earth so why would anyone want a cooler climate?</i><br /><br />Has anyone, anywhere, said they want a cooler climate?<br /><br />Please provide a citation -- because I have yet to read that anywhere.<br /><br />What *I've* read are worries about are ability to adapt to rapid climate change, of order 0.15-0.2 C/decade. <br /><br />That is enormous, by historical and geological standards. Why should it not be worrisome? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-26523053373810621652013-06-15T15:26:05.444-07:002013-06-15T15:26:05.444-07:00Rodent: Has it ever occurred to you that not every...Rodent: Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone lives in England?<br /><br />It's true -- you can look it up. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19462662655060067132013-06-12T20:41:07.620-07:002013-06-12T20:41:07.620-07:00The "Radical Rodent" is quite persuasive...The "Radical Rodent" is quite persuasive. I particularly enjoyed this:<br /><br />"What I can see is the global temperatures and climates changing for reasons and ways not yet known over the past few billion years, and this slight yet blessed rise since the Little Ice Age a boon for civilization; what I look forward to is longer, balmier summers in England; what I do dread is a return of glaciers to Scotland."<br /><br />A cooler Earth is much more to be feared than a warmer Earth so why would anyone want a cooler climate?bahamamammahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02562437947503728427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-29531093135288976102013-06-10T11:10:12.593-07:002013-06-10T11:10:12.593-07:00Where was all the predictions of this heat being l...<i>Where was all the predictions of this heat being lost in the oceans before?</i><br /><br />When AGW and (especially) the PDO were going in the same direction, it was easy to see the GW signal on the surface.<br /><br />Now it is not as easy, since the PDO is going the other way. So you have to look at the entire climate system to see it. <br /><br />See how understanding advances? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-23370924772365156362013-06-10T11:07:53.758-07:002013-06-10T11:07:53.758-07:00Do you expect surface temperature to increase mono...Do you expect surface temperature to increase monotonically, year after year? <br /><br />That's absurd. <br /><br />The 15-year trend of HadCRUT4 is currently 0.05 C/decade. Just 6 years ago it was 0.29 C/decade. <br /><br />The trend over short intervals fluctuates greatly, due to noise and oceanic weather.<br /><br />Why is that so difficult to understand?? <br /><br />Most of us are talking about climate. You are talking about noise and weather. <br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-29049629031469212572013-06-10T10:54:56.873-07:002013-06-10T10:54:56.873-07:00"
David Appell said...
So the fact that CO2..."<br /> David Appell said... <br />So the fact that CO2 is increasing but the climate is remaining the same is a proof of that, is it?<br /><br />This is simply an incorrect statement. <br /><br />The science does not support it, nor do macroscopic indicators: ocean warming, ice melt, sea level rise. <br /><br />I think you are purposely choosing to keep a myopic view in order to maintain the position that climate is not changing. <br /><br />"<br /><br />We were told via various "predictions" (Hansen, IPCC etc ) that the "temp is increasing, dramatically so. This was going to imperril life etc. They presented graphs, with temps. We have the whole climate sensitivity issue, greater than 2.0 but less than 6.0.<br /><br />My question Mr. Appell is this, at the current trend of actual air surface temp increasing a rate just above 0, compared to the "PREDICTED" increase rate of 0.2C/ Decade (or more - depending on model) - at what point can you no longer defend the models? Where was all the predictions of this heat being lost in the oceans before?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-83827459094545514062013-06-10T09:49:04.232-07:002013-06-10T09:49:04.232-07:00Does Spencers point fall apart if one used the sam...<i>Does Spencers point fall apart if one used the same area coverage used in this graph rather than the tropics only?</i><br /><br />Charles: The data is readily available. Learn to do your own calculations.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-71803367946287487272013-06-10T09:42:07.499-07:002013-06-10T09:42:07.499-07:00Show your work?
I did -- there is a link to the R...<i>Show your work?</i><br /><br />I did -- there is a link to the RSS MT data. <br /><br />The calculation is too trivial to "show" -- if you need to be shown it, you won't understand it anyway. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-15646992388066862282013-06-10T09:39:14.249-07:002013-06-10T09:39:14.249-07:00Does Spencers point fall apart if one used the sam...Does Spencers point fall apart if one used the same area coverage used in this graph rather than the tropics only?<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dnes_33_6-8-13.gifcharlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-56791511920009019852013-06-10T09:32:27.125-07:002013-06-10T09:32:27.125-07:00"I calculated the RSS trend myself."
Sh..."I calculated the RSS trend myself."<br /><br />Show your work?<br /><br />If you do a global calc for RSS do you get close agreement UAH as in shown in this graph?<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dnes_33_6-8-13.gifcharlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73986027103300642932013-06-10T09:23:15.657-07:002013-06-10T09:23:15.657-07:00I calculated the RSS trend myself.I calculated the RSS trend myself.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-46171636952596899242013-06-10T09:21:07.588-07:002013-06-10T09:21:07.588-07:00I'm having a hard time understanding how you g...I'm having a hard time understanding how you got your numbers from the sources linked.<br /><br />For the UAH source I see at the very bottom a line labeled "Trend" and the value is 0.03 for the "Trcps" column (Trcps defined as 20s-20n). This agrees the 0.030 value stated in your original post.<br /><br />For the RSS source I do not see at the very bottom a line labeled trend. Instead I see a value of 0.090 for the year 2013 in the -20/20 (tropics)column. This 0.090 value agrees with the one in your original post but I don't think it is a trend value is it?<br /><br />Where did you get the 0.090 trend value for RSS?<br /><br />In this graph there doesn't seem to be much difference between UAH and RSS data over the last 30yrs.<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/dnes_33_6-8-13.gif<br /><br />What am I missing?charlesHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17798022842779057473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-11956189690336208572013-06-09T16:02:46.633-07:002013-06-09T16:02:46.633-07:00When you say that 0.06 with a standard deviation o...<i>When you say that 0.06 with a standard deviation of 0.04</i><br /><br />0.04 = 2 standard deviations, not one. <br /><br />Hence 0.06 is 3 sd's away from zero. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-810491083067062722013-06-09T14:50:28.297-07:002013-06-09T14:50:28.297-07:00Mike R wrote:
It's a little hard for me to swa...Mike R wrote:<br /><i>It's a little hard for me to swallow that you are suggesting that the models might be right instead.</i><br /><br />The primary point of my post was about Spencer's unprofessionalism.<br /><br />But there have been times in the past where models and measurements disagreed, and it was the models that were right, not the measurements. <br /><br />One can't simply assume the measurements are right, especially when they themselves are heavily dependent on their own models. They really aren't measuring tropospheric temperatures so much as they are modelling them. <br /> David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-13739572351936446672013-06-09T14:27:31.305-07:002013-06-09T14:27:31.305-07:00Not if you ability to measure zero is
0.0 +/- 0.04...<i>Not if you ability to measure zero is<br />0.0 +/- 0.04</i><br /><br />The number 0.06 +/- 0.04 is statistically different from zero. It is a question of statistics, not measurement accuracies. (In fact, you'll note that neither RSS nor UAH give error bars on their monthly numbers.)<br /><br />The trends from RSS MT Tropics and UAH MT Tropics are not the same, to a confidence level of at least 95%. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-20133498545315684242013-06-09T14:21:29.179-07:002013-06-09T14:21:29.179-07:00what I have trouble with is the idea that a very, ...<i>what I have trouble with is the idea that a very, very small proportion – <0.05% is small</i><br /><br />The level of stratospheric ozone is less than 10 ppm, yet without it we'd all be dead.<br /><br />The dose makes the poison. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-32444766210663477642013-06-09T09:44:53.870-07:002013-06-09T09:44:53.870-07:00By the bye, I didn't see the egregiousness of ...By the bye, I didn't see the egregiousness of the "three times the trend" of one satellite dataset over the other. Looking at a time series of each dataset, they look pretty much the same, matching each other well - with hardly any trend at all. If one of them is drifting a little with respect to the other, they should correct it if they can find it. But I don't see how that fixes the issue Spencer is mentioning. Isn't it true that every single trend of those balloons and satellites is much less than every single trend of the models? It's a little hard for me to swallow that you are suggesting that the models might be right instead. I'm afraid that "Epic Fail" isn't such a bad description.<br /><br />It suggests two issues: 1) The models are off really badly, and can't be relied on for anything important. And 2) They are all off in the same direction. I doubt that indicates corruption or a fraud or any of the stuff fools like to suggest, but it probably does indicate some kind of serious systematic mistake that all the modelers made together. Can you blame the average American who is no longer sure that these very confident-sounding guys have a clue?MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-12037924246782967272013-06-09T09:23:35.700-07:002013-06-09T09:23:35.700-07:00"Note that the observations (which coincident..."Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends" I am not sure what you complaint is against this statement. Here is the full context: "Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends) come from two very different observational systems: 4 radiosonde datasets, and 2 satellite datasets (UAH and RSS)." In other words, the (averaged) trend from the balloons is virtually identical to the (averaged) trend from the satellites. I think that is clearly his meaning.<br /><br />I was also not too sure what was so very unprofessional about his post. Where exactly was he sneering or mocking? The phrase "Epic Fail" in the title is all I could come up with; the claim that the models are failing is in itself not mocking.<br />Anyhow, I'm a little surprised that you're criticizing it. I just glanced at Open Mind from Tamino, and every single post I could see was sneering at some stupid+lying+villain. The same with W. Connolley: they are <i>always</i> mocking, and I think much more obviously than Spencer's lone post. Are they not scientists, or not professionals? Have you posted criticizing them? (Maybe you have.)MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-62796180995304659562013-06-09T09:22:39.129-07:002013-06-09T09:22:39.129-07:00When you say that 0.06 with a standard deviation o...When you say that 0.06 with a standard deviation of 0.04 is statistically different from zero you are at odds with over 100 years of statistical practice<br />See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sealy_GossetAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-24539460753633372722013-06-09T00:15:43.618-07:002013-06-09T00:15:43.618-07:00“The science is settled” is a trope churned out by...“<i>The science is settled</i>” is a trope churned out by the MSM. It may not be scientifically correct, but it has been said by self-declared scientists, and is endlessly repeated by politicians as they try to justify their ever-increasing taxation, and persistence in driving civilization backwards to the Dark Ages. <br /><br />In desperate attempts to prevent the long-suffering public from seeing through this plethora of lies, there are many, many schemes in effect to distract their attention. However, when the blackouts start, and the public can no longer get their fix of “X Factor” and other such tripe, then will the pianos be broken up. Beware, because it is not only the politicians that will be in their sights, but also those who fed them the (dis)information.<br /><br />Radical RodentAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-86987271300151501242013-06-08T23:48:13.848-07:002013-06-08T23:48:13.848-07:00Mr. Appell,
Thank you for the courtesy of replyin...Mr. Appell,<br /><br />Thank you for the courtesy of replying.<br /><br />Now we are getting to the point that is my major bone of contention: “<i>…putting more heat[-]trapping gases…</i>”. According to NASA, it is because we have an atmosphere that the surface temperature is what it is, and not 0°F; the implication here is that ALL gasses are heat-trapping. This, I can accept; I can accept that some gasses may be more effective than others at retaining this heat; what I have trouble with is the idea that a very, very small proportion – <0.05% <i>is</i> small, whichever way you look at it; it is less than 5 cents from a hundred dollars – of the atmosphere can have such a massive effect. It is like having a greenhouse with 100m2 of glass, 5 square inches of which is super-greenhouse glass; increase this to 8 square inches, and all your plants are going to burn and wither away. Sorry, I cannot see that.<br /><br />What I <i>can</i> see is the global temperatures and climates changing for reasons and ways not yet known over the past few billion years, and this slight yet blessed rise since the Little Ice Age a boon for civilization; what I look forward to is longer, balmier summers in England; what I <i>do</i> dread is a return of glaciers to Scotland.<br /><br />Finally, could you please explain what is wrong with the measurements taken, and how they should have been derived.<br /><br />Radical Rodent<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-9719493122708165172013-06-08T14:48:08.977-07:002013-06-08T14:48:08.977-07:00"David Appell said...
The number 0.06 +/- 0.0..."David Appell said...<br />The number 0.06 +/- 0.04 is statistically different from zero."<br />Not if you ability to measure zero is <br /> 0.0 +/- 0.04.<br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-81804666331264492272013-06-08T14:20:30.133-07:002013-06-08T14:20:30.133-07:00But in looking at Spencer's figure, I also see...But in looking at Spencer's figure, I also see reference to an average of four radiosonde series, which do appear to agree quite closely with the average of the two satellite series. Hard to imagine that is pure coincidence.NuclearEnvironmentalisthttp://nuclearenvironmentalist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-79757411654153332642013-06-08T14:06:11.434-07:002013-06-08T14:06:11.434-07:00Isn't Spencer's result exactly, what you w...Isn't Spencer's result exactly, what you would have expected ?<br /><br />The best constrained observational based climate sensitivity (Nic Lewis) now stands at 1.6K (and the Otto result would be 1.7K with updated data).<br /><br />Then, the tropospheric hotspot does not exist, neither in satellite nor baloon data, though models compute tropospheric anamolies at about 1.5 surface temperatures.<br /><br />Both combined results in a model deviation of almost factor 3 from measured data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-53888600947409042862013-06-08T11:12:06.578-07:002013-06-08T11:12:06.578-07:00Note that Spencer writes, "Note that the obse...Note that Spencer writes, "Note that the observations (which coincidentally give virtually identical trends)..."<br /><br />They do only only if you ignore than UAH and RSS do not agree.<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-observations-for-tropical-tropospheric-temperature/David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.com