Comments on: Cointegration Summary http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: VS se dispone a zarandear la base de la ciencia climática actual « PlazaMoyua.org http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-109 VS se dispone a zarandear la base de la ciencia climática actual « PlazaMoyua.org Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:58:14 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-109 [...] Un resumen (muy resumen) sobre cointegración [...] [...] Un resumen (muy resumen) sobre cointegración [...]

]]> By: Jan Pompe http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-111 Jan Pompe Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:37:02 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-111 Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip.I'm glad that you've sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don't know but see my response to David. Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip.I'm glad that you've sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don't know but see my response to David.

]]> By: Jan Pompe http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-113 Jan Pompe Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:30:48 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-113 There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it's not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere.I'm firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done. There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it's not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere.I'm firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-112 davids99us Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:07:51 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-112 Thanks for the clear comment Steve. I don't have any problem with Garth's assessment, and that Miskolczi took a few air swings in his paper, or that it was purposeful had waving, to draw attention to the homeostasis at core. Thanks for the clear comment Steve. I don't have any problem with Garth's assessment, and that Miskolczi took a few air swings in his paper, or that it was purposeful had waving, to draw attention to the homeostasis at core.

]]> By: Steve Short http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-110 Steve Short Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:44:37 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-110 I have been overseas on business for 5 days so have been unable to comment. A few points:I make the overall increase in SH over the entire globe over 1949 - 2009 for the pressure range from 1000 mb to 300 mb pressure to be from about 7.63 g/kg to about 7.88 g/kg, i.e. an overall INCREASE of about 0.25 g/kg.Superimposed on that increase I make the overall decrease in SH over the entire globe over 1949 - 2009 from 700 mb to 300 mb pressure to be only from about 2.53 g/kg to about 2.49 g/kg, i.e. a decrease of about 0.04 g/kg.Thus the decrease in SH at high altitude was about 0.04 g/kg imposed on top of an actual overall increase over the whole troposphere up to 300 mb pressure of about 0.29 g/kg i.e. only some 14% of the overall increase.The decrease in SH at high altitude may be seen to be an insignificant trend in the overall scheme of things because:(1) The bulk of the tropospheric water content (~70%) is at low altitude below about 4 km anyway i.e. below about 700 mb and there the really long term trend is clearly an increase. (2) Most LW IR absorption occurs in that lower part of the troposphere below ~ 4km anyway (as even Miskolczi himself often pointed out). (3) As I had noted, ironically even Miskolczi himself clearly expected the water vapor content should decline at all altitudes right down to the surface to provide his form (or more correctly perhaps, one of his forms of homeostasis). In this context, I can't see a meaningful claim for significance in a downward trend in water vapor content at only high altitude (above ~ 4km) which is less than one sixth of the overall long term increase at low altitude (below ~ 4 km). Similarly I therefore can't see how it demonstrates: '....an obvious relationship to Miskolczi’s theory of constant greenhouse effect,...' - whatever is meant by that purposefully vague hand waving assertion. Obvious - how? Constant greenhouse effect - how come? It can also be noted that the apparent decline in SH at high altitude seems to occur largely in the earlier period when the data was derived from radio sondes rather than in the later period where the data is satellite-derived. Of course, that was the issue upon which critiques of Garth Paltridge's paper were based. In all fairness it needs to be noted that Paltridge himself acknowledged that as a a potential confounding issue 'upfront'. I have been overseas on business for 5 days so have been unable to comment. A few points:I make the overall increase in SH over the entire globe over 1949 – 2009 for the pressure range from 1000 mb to 300 mb pressure to be from about 7.63 g/kg to about 7.88 g/kg, i.e. an overall INCREASE of about 0.25 g/kg.Superimposed on that increase I make the overall decrease in SH over the entire globe over 1949 – 2009 from 700 mb to 300 mb pressure to be only from about 2.53 g/kg to about 2.49 g/kg, i.e. a decrease of about 0.04 g/kg.Thus the decrease in SH at high altitude was about 0.04 g/kg imposed on top of an actual overall increase over the whole troposphere up to 300 mb pressure of about 0.29 g/kg i.e. only some 14% of the overall increase.The decrease in SH at high altitude may be seen to be an insignificant trend in the overall scheme of things because:(1) The bulk of the tropospheric water content (~70%) is at low altitude below about 4 km anyway i.e. below about 700 mb and there the really long term trend is clearly an increase. (2) Most LW IR absorption occurs in that lower part of the troposphere below ~ 4km anyway (as even Miskolczi himself often pointed out). (3) As I had noted, ironically even Miskolczi himself clearly expected the water vapor content should decline at all altitudes right down to the surface to provide his form (or more correctly perhaps, one of his forms of homeostasis). In this context, I can't see a meaningful claim for significance in a downward trend in water vapor content at only high altitude (above ~ 4km) which is less than one sixth of the overall long term increase at low altitude (below ~ 4 km). Similarly I therefore can't see how it demonstrates: '….an obvious relationship to Miskolczi’s theory of constant greenhouse effect,…' – whatever is meant by that purposefully vague hand waving assertion. Obvious – how? Constant greenhouse effect – how come? It can also be noted that the apparent decline in SH at high altitude seems to occur largely in the earlier period when the data was derived from radio sondes rather than in the later period where the data is satellite-derived. Of course, that was the issue upon which critiques of Garth Paltridge's paper were based. In all fairness it needs to be noted that Paltridge himself acknowledged that as a a potential confounding issue 'upfront'.

]]> By: Jan Pompe http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-108 Jan Pompe Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:37:02 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-108 Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip.I'm glad that you've sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don't know but see my response to David. Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip.I'm glad that you've sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don't know but see my response to David.

]]> By: Jan Pompe http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-12486 Jan Pompe Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:37:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-12486 Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip. I'm glad that you've sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don't know but see my response to David. Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip.

I’m glad that you’ve sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don’t know but see my response to David.

]]> By: Jan Pompe http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-107 Jan Pompe Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:30:48 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-107 There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it's not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere.I'm firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done. There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it's not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere.I'm firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done.

]]> By: Jan Pompe http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-12483 Jan Pompe Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:30:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-12483 There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it's not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere. I'm firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done. There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it’s not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere.

I’m firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/cointegration-summary/#comment-106 davids99us Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:07:51 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3943#comment-106 Thanks for the clear comment Steve. I don't have any problem withGarth's assessment, and that Miskolczi took a few air swings in hispaper. Thanks for the clear comment Steve. I don't have any problem withGarth's assessment, and that Miskolczi took a few air swings in hispaper.

]]>