Log In

    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

    - Modify Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
    - Support Area

andichow ([info]andichow) wrote,
@ 2013-11-15 16:56:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
A lucky escape for diecast models Roy Spencer
A lucky escape for Roy Spencer

Roy Spencer's recent post comparing climate model predictions to observations has been providing lots of entertainment in recent days - I really should have posted a link before. David Appell is unamused by Roy's thoughts though, and has taken him to task,declaring his blog post "unprofessional". My error; as a bear of very little brain,http://www.voguediecast.com/, these things happen. The average is of two actual readings, though why they should differ by such a large factor remains a mystery to me. However, I do acknowledge that the actual numbers are not very big, the higher still being less than 0.1°C; I have yet to see a thermometer that accurate, but will accept that they might exist. Perhaps the question should be: does the higher of the two actual readings come close to matching the lowest of the predicted figures?

If not, why the gloating?

I read and reread this posting, but don get it. What is the "lucky escape" referred to in the title?

Jun 8,diecast models, 2013 at 11:14 AM | steveta ------------------------------------------------steveta,I think the Bishop is being sarcastic. The point of Appell joke (for that is the best way to take it) is that the relatively large uncertainties in such small numbers allow one to divide one by the other to get a huge ratio. The Bishop point is that it could also so easily have made one of the numbers precisely equal to zero, which of course means the ratio of the two would then have been effectively infinite (a division by zero error).

[BH adds: Yes, that it. Spencer has narrowly avoided being "infinitely wrong", in Appell estimation at least]

Appell knows all this of course, but is probably also assuming (and hoping) that most of the readers are complete f***wits.

David Appell is a political opponent, not a scientific one. But the debate is insane, and the character of the public debate is that of entrenched positions, avoiding hard reality and whoever has a better handle on that reality. Avoidance behavior all around. The politics has the "fix" in and is hell-bent, so war is here, and avoiding the truth--as all the well-known players in the internet debate have been doing, since my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison put an actual end to the scientific debate, although the current, miseducated and indoctrinated generation has failed so far to see it--is only increasing the relentless pressure for physical violence in the larger, world war, of aggressive dogmas (Islam and Malthusian "environmentalism" the most apparent) being relentlessly pushed now. The die is cast now, and only regime changes all around, with a new appreciation for the stability of the natural "global climate", and cessation of all governmental "climate change" policies and renunciation of the very idea of "controlling the globe" (the last goes for Islamists, too), can save the day. From what I have seen in the last 3 1/2 years, I don think good reason will prevail before the pressure blows things up.

There is a difference in the trend between the two datasets but they are almost identical otherwise. The divergence seems to start after the 1997-98 El Nino. (I didn put trend lines on this chart because it gets too noisy but one can probably see they are almost identical although there is a small difference in the trend).

But what is much more interesting, is that the TMT tropics is dominated by the ENSO. There is no global warming tropical hotspot from increased water vapor. The ENSO runs this region with as much as as +/- 0.7C impact very directly one-for-one. (other influences like volcanoes and the AMO are also clear). And there is no long-term trend in the ENSO so one would expect there to be no long-term in the TMT temps either.

So there is NO global warming signal here at all. In fact, the regression coefficient for Ln(CO2) is Zero. UAH TMT can be modelled very closely without a global warming signal.

(Read comments)

Post a comment in response:

No HTML allowed in subject
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map