Comments on: Robustness of Natural Variation http://landshape.org/enm/robustness-of-linear-regression/ The power of numeracy Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:39:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: timcurtin http://landshape.org/enm/robustness-of-linear-regression/comment-page-1/#comment-179605 timcurtin Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:41:51 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3151#comment-179605 Interesting stuff, only problem is the underlying "global temperature" data itself, which is deeply corrupted by the southerly march of temperature records in the NH, and northerly march in Australia and South America. EM Smith has documented this exhaustively at his site <a href="http://chiefio.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">http://chiefio.wordpress.com</a><br>So far as can be determined, NOAA/GISS, BoM, and CRUT make no attempt to weight their global series for departures and/or relocations of Met stations. Instead it appears they weed out stations showing declining trends and keep only the warmers. Is that fair comment? Probably, especially for CRUT and Gistemp. Incredibly it appears GCHN now has only 2 "compliant" stations for England, Bournemouth and Waddington of all places. In Australia cool Tasmanian stations have been replaced by warm ones in NT - consistent with the trend for "public" servants to become Political Commissars (as at CSIRO, see Spash affair in this week's Australian). Interesting stuff, only problem is the underlying “global temperature” data itself, which is deeply corrupted by the southerly march of temperature records in the NH, and northerly march in Australia and South America. EM Smith has documented this exhaustively at his site http://chiefio.wordpress.com
So far as can be determined, NOAA/GISS, BoM, and CRUT make no attempt to weight their global series for departures and/or relocations of Met stations. Instead it appears they weed out stations showing declining trends and keep only the warmers. Is that fair comment? Probably, especially for CRUT and Gistemp. Incredibly it appears GCHN now has only 2 “compliant” stations for England, Bournemouth and Waddington of all places. In Australia cool Tasmanian stations have been replaced by warm ones in NT – consistent with the trend for “public” servants to become Political Commissars (as at CSIRO, see Spash affair in this week's Australian).

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/robustness-of-linear-regression/comment-page-1/#comment-179590 davids99us Fri, 30 Oct 2009 19:08:22 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3151#comment-179590 Andrew, That is right, the slope is declining as more recent data is added,<br>so I would think that the estimates of Spencer, Douglass and Lindzen are<br>probably closer than those of Forster.<br><br>Note this is not a result that pleases anyone, as the AGW'ers don't get the<br>IPCC projections to cling to, but there may be an effect there unfortunately<br>for the skeptics. It pleases me though, as I have always opposed the<br>exaggeration and exploitation of the issue by scientists, not the potential<br>for some (small) effect.<br>There are a whole lot of issues around what conclusions can be drawn, so<br>don't infer this is any kind of proof. It is what it is. Andrew, That is right, the slope is declining as more recent data is added,
so I would think that the estimates of Spencer, Douglass and Lindzen are
probably closer than those of Forster.

Note this is not a result that pleases anyone, as the AGW'ers don't get the
IPCC projections to cling to, but there may be an effect there unfortunately
for the skeptics. It pleases me though, as I have always opposed the
exaggeration and exploitation of the issue by scientists, not the potential
for some (small) effect.
There are a whole lot of issues around what conclusions can be drawn, so
don't infer this is any kind of proof. It is what it is.

]]> By: Andrew http://landshape.org/enm/robustness-of-linear-regression/comment-page-1/#comment-179584 Andrew Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:44:01 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3151#comment-179584 The new models seem a little more realistic to me. I think that I might try to look at some fits with more defined predictors (which should satisfy Nick's concerns re: the shape of the AGW curve). But I think that the green, cyan, and magenta are giving sensible "projection" in the sense that some significant AGW (not dangerous) probably will lead to warming on the low side of the IPCC projections. Those models, when working on ALL the data, are just below the projections. Given the unlikely-ness of acceleration after 1979, they might even be too much. The new models seem a little more realistic to me. I think that I might try to look at some fits with more defined predictors (which should satisfy Nick's concerns re: the shape of the AGW curve). But I think that the green, cyan, and magenta are giving sensible “projection” in the sense that some significant AGW (not dangerous) probably will lead to warming on the low side of the IPCC projections. Those models, when working on ALL the data, are just below the projections. Given the unlikely-ness of acceleration after 1979, they might even be too much.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/robustness-of-linear-regression/comment-page-1/#comment-179583 davids99us Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:18:21 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3151#comment-179583 Yes of course, brain freeze. Other typos corrected too. Yes of course, brain freeze. Other typos corrected too.

]]> By: Nick Stokes http://landshape.org/enm/robustness-of-linear-regression/comment-page-1/#comment-179582 Nick Stokes Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:02:34 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3151#comment-179582 By "sigmoidal" do you mean sinusoidal? It looks like it. They are quite different. By “sigmoidal” do you mean sinusoidal? It looks like it. They are quite different.

]]>