tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post392743114630514889..comments2019-07-19T17:26:42.409-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Idiots DelightEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-59156725331595864662011-11-18T01:31:02.591-05:002011-11-18T01:31:02.591-05:00Thanks for this post, I hope that I can visit your...Thanks for this post, I hope that I can visit your blog every day but unfortunately I can't do that. By the way, can you have a review about <a href="http://ysseo0.cafe24.com/Effect-of-Google-1" rel="nofollow">google +1 effect</a>? I just want to know it better. Thanks again! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9158389844475409072010-03-12T16:15:33.544-05:002010-03-12T16:15:33.544-05:00I don't know what is consistent or year dot, b...I don't know what is consistent or year dot, but the forcings for GISS model E are right there on the giss page, if that's in any way usefulcarrot eaternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21065446402396695292010-03-12T04:04:09.424-05:002010-03-12T04:04:09.424-05:00I am also looking for a consistent set of forcings...I am also looking for a consistent set of forcings... (I dunno what the year dot is though). Take a look at ar4 fig 6.13 (<a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/ipcc2007.html" rel="nofollow">data is available</a>)Aslak Grinstedhttp://www.glaciology.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7985760619729575962010-03-12T01:58:17.688-05:002010-03-12T01:58:17.688-05:00Tamino also put in his 2 cents:
http://tamino.word...Tamino also put in his 2 cents:<br />http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/not-a-random-walk/Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11165848820033955102010-03-09T22:58:25.795-05:002010-03-09T22:58:25.795-05:00I'm now convinced that the data B&R used f...I'm now convinced that the data B&R used for the forcings is not raw data. It's been smoothed or otherwise manipulated. I took the Mauna Loa annual CO2 data from 1958-2009, calculated the log ratio and tested that with the augmented Dewey-Fuller test for unit root. It's I(1), not I(2). The ghg column in the GISS file I linked above for about the same time period, OTOH, is still I(2). Boom, your battleship has been sunk.DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06921810076159914432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26639554471809476852010-03-09T17:34:41.888-05:002010-03-09T17:34:41.888-05:00Take down.<a href="http://landshape.org/enm/polynomial-cointegration-rebuts-agw/" rel="nofollow">Take down.</a>David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60463861968626426212010-03-09T16:53:56.183-05:002010-03-09T16:53:56.183-05:00"GLOBAL warming is set to become global cooli..."GLOBAL warming is set to become global cooling this century, a leading analyst claimed yesterday. Professor Michael Beenstock said theories of climate change are wrong. He warned climatologists have misused statistics, leading them to the mistaken conclusion global warming is evidence of the greenhouse effect. He told London’s Cass Business School that the link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures is “spurious”, adding: “The greenhouse effect is an illusion.”"<br /><br />The moron doesn't even understand that the "evidence" of the greenhouse effect is measurements of the spectroscopic properties of gases. Please squash like a bug.B. Kalafuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15678386134174713187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-9267697165265769322010-03-09T15:34:57.508-05:002010-03-09T15:34:57.508-05:00“the GHG forcings are l(2) and temperatures are l(...“the GHG forcings are l(2) and temperatures are l(1) so they cannot be cointegrated, as this makes them asymptotically independent.”<br /><br />Let me see. I take a diode, biased in the exponential region, and put a varying current through it. I measure both the current and the voltage drop across the diode and discover that I is exponential and V is linear, therefore they are “asymptotically independent”<br /><br />siddsiddnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37113998045762964242010-03-09T03:50:43.742-05:002010-03-09T03:50:43.742-05:00I wrote down my thought on this 'random walk&#...I wrote down my thought on this 'random walk' hypothesis in a new post: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2010/03/08/is-the-increase-in-global-average-temperature-just-a-random-walk/<br /><br />BartAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69139755293206410692010-03-08T19:49:18.477-05:002010-03-08T19:49:18.477-05:00A reminder that the Arrhenius approximation gives ...A reminder that the Arrhenius approximation gives a forcing proportional to the logarithm of the CO2 concentration. So an exxpotentially increasing CO2 concentration gives a linear trending forcing.<br /><br />By the way, where can I read about this I(1), I(2) stuff? I'm learning about ARMA and ARIMA right now.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-12054167266944137742010-03-08T16:44:57.708-05:002010-03-08T16:44:57.708-05:00Arthur - Yes, I agree. I'm sure that if you p...Arthur - Yes, I agree. I'm sure that if you plugged the Vostok CO2 and temperature record into the meat grinder, they would be of the same integration order, probably I(1), and would be highly correlated, especially if one used a model with a time constant and/or lag. I'd do it, but I think the time series need to be simultaneous and have constant size time intervals. I don't know how, other than brute force interpolation which is too labor intensive, to do that. Probably somebody, somewhere, has already done it.DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06921810076159914432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-37711575191452109332010-03-08T16:04:02.315-05:002010-03-08T16:04:02.315-05:00DeWitt - well, I think Eli's point was the onl...DeWitt - well, I think Eli's point was the only reason they are seeing I(2) is because they include a particular time interval. For a few decades, it's linear (I(1) presumably). Go back 2000 years, or 600,000 years on CO2 and see how it works...Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-89202932958788425772010-03-08T14:50:56.759-05:002010-03-08T14:50:56.759-05:00Arthur said:
"And an exponential curve has po...Arthur said:<br />"And an exponential curve has positive n'th "differences" for every value of n!"<br /><br />But if you take the second difference of the actual data, there's enough noise that, while it fails a normality test, the lag-1 correlation coefficient is small enough that it fails the unit root test. In terms of cointegration, if the second difference had a unit root, then it would be I(3) or higher and it would be even worse. But the whole thing is bogus, IMO, in that the test was designed for variables that were not known to be related to see if a correlation between them was spurious. There is a known mechanism between ghg's and temperature so whether it passes the test or not is irrelevant. But I'm not an expert on cointegration so it's just my opinion.DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06921810076159914432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32695218291128943482010-03-08T12:45:28.759-05:002010-03-08T12:45:28.759-05:00My previous example, change all point barrow to Fa...My previous example, change all point barrow to Fairbanks, AL. Not that it changes the point.Tracy P. Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04228308036995626376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81990221469847200112010-03-08T11:41:01.959-05:002010-03-08T11:41:01.959-05:00Tim Curtin continues to "educate" us:&qu...Tim Curtin continues to "educate" us:"It is indeed odd how climatologists like Lean and Tracy focus on the sun's output at ToA and [CO2] but ignore all other climatic variables, such as SSR and RH."<br /><br />That must be why the climate models predict the same temperature for point Barrow and LA. Let us see what those would be, from weather.com.<br /><br />LA January average high 68<br />Pt Barrow average January high 2 degrees<br /><br />So if the climate models to not account for solar insolation, the January anomaly is 66 degrees higher for Fairbanks than for LA. <br /><br />Tim Curtin wrong again. Dog bites man. Film at 11.Tracy P. Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04228308036995626376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-66943493408710196132010-03-08T09:34:09.074-05:002010-03-08T09:34:09.074-05:00DeWitt - but the second derivative (or "diffe...DeWitt - but the second derivative (or "difference") of CO2 concentration is most definitely not "uncorrelated noise with a mean of zero". It is not "noise" at all, it's entirely traceable to human fossil fuel consumption, which has a specific growth pattern that is close to exponential (with oil-shock and economic-collapse variations). And an exponential curve has positive n'th "differences" for every value of n!Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45520547955002876582010-03-08T05:33:59.123-05:002010-03-08T05:33:59.123-05:00To elaborate on DeWitt, an l(0) process is white n...To elaborate on DeWitt, an l(0) process is white noise and an l(1) process, a classical random walk ("brownian motion"). l(2) is a bit harder to describe: perhaps the location of a vehicle tracked by an inertial device, where the acceleration is "noisy".<br /><br />It is clear to me that the nonsense assumption that shoots down this B&R thing is the lack of any constraint, nicely hidden in the stats talk, on the possible magnitude of natural unforced variability in temperature. Yes, it is trivially true that if you allow for a large enough natural variability, you cannot rule out with any confidence that it is <em>that</em> which has produced the temperature upswing since 1980. <br /><br />The question to ask, which B&R conspicuously do not, is, how physically realistic that is. <br /><br />As the Wabett sayz:<br /><br /><em><br />Now this is par for the course in economics where there are no constraints, but it ain't so cool when you deal with physical reality.<br /></em><br /><br />Spot on.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19036943458476273272010-03-07T22:26:05.771-05:002010-03-07T22:26:05.771-05:00Tracy obviously belongs to the Kiehl-Trenberth sch...Tracy obviously belongs to the Kiehl-Trenberth school of flat earth and permanent daylight school of climatologists (enshrined in the IPCC's AR4). Amazingly enough perhaps for Tracy, temperatures at Pt Barrow in Alaska are not quite the same as in LA or NYC, even though the atmospheric CO2 is, but not the SSR. It is indeed odd how climatologists like Lean and Tracy focus on the sun's output at ToA and [CO2] but ignore all other climatic variables, such as SSR and RH.Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71312063927298245132010-03-07T22:10:47.555-05:002010-03-07T22:10:47.555-05:00Before others spend too much effort on this, the a...Before others spend too much effort on this, the authors should check the reliability of their approach by applying it to model data on global temperature trends with and without anthropogenic forcings. Clearly, if their method does not find the effect of CO2 forcing in model outputs that explicitly include it, the method has a problem.rehuiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15240529326725261711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52643934501077251832010-03-07T21:39:38.516-05:002010-03-07T21:39:38.516-05:00Tim Curtin is insiring a comment:"while the s...Tim Curtin is insiring a comment:"while the surface solar radiation (SSR) is what reaches individual locations on the surface of the globe and is by no means to be equated with TSI, which barely changes, whereas SSR varies enormously."<br /><br />Because if TSI was the same as SSR, we could send a rocket ship to the sun at night! Curtin's "analysis" is equally profound analysis, I am sure.Tracy P. Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04228308036995626376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56560454987957163052010-03-07T21:08:45.876-05:002010-03-07T21:08:45.876-05:00David Benson - many thanks for that link to Judith...David Benson - many thanks for that link to Judith Lean's latest, but her claim that 'anthropogenic effects account for 90% of industrial global warming' is absurd. Her total solar irradiance (TSI) is the output from the sun, while the surface solar radiation (SSR) is what reaches individual locations on the surface of the globe and is by no means to be equated with TSI, which barely changes, whereas SSR varies enormously. Using NOAA data, I find that the RF of CO2 as the chief GHG is NEVER a stat. sig. determinant of changes in temperature at any given location in the USA, unlike changes in SSR. Thus my findings complement those of Beenstock, and rebut Lean.Tim Curtinhttp://www.timcurtin.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-21386068598927380632010-03-07T19:54:02.998-05:002010-03-07T19:54:02.998-05:00IPCC AR4 WG1 has fairly strong cautionary language...IPCC AR4 WG1 has fairly strong cautionary language regarding at least volcanic aerosol forcings. Gavin Schmidt has repeatedly pointed out in comments on RealClimate that adding up all the forcings, at least the way GISS does it for ModelE, results in a net forcing about equal to that of CO2 alone. <a href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123222295/PDFSTART" rel="nofollow">This pdf paper</a> has some cautionary language regarding TSI, but still concldues that GHGs account for 90% of the variance.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-39204163434878401812010-03-07T19:34:03.583-05:002010-03-07T19:34:03.583-05:00I constructed a simple conceptual model based on d...I constructed a simple conceptual model based on decades, with a lag of one decade in applyiung the CO2 forcing. CO2 alone accounts for 96% of the observed variance. Using about (1/3) of the AMO for internal variability and minor forcings accounts for another 3% of the variance. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/comment-page-23/#comment-164509" rel="nofollow">Details here.</a><br /><br />Think of this as a simplified version of Tamino's two box model plus the AMO.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-54746879344183233972010-03-07T17:54:44.813-05:002010-03-07T17:54:44.813-05:00Arthur,
"If you "difference" GHG f...Arthur,<br /><br />"If you "difference" GHG forcings twice you definitely don't get something "stationary" in the sense of constant."<br /><br />It isn't constant, it's uncorrelated noise with a mean of zero, which is stationary by definition in time series analysis. <br /><br />An I(0) process does not have a unit root. An I(1) process has a unit root. The first difference of an I(2) process has a unit root. Having a unit root is identical to having an AR(1) noise distribution or a lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient of 1. That means point y(t) = y(t-1) + Z where Z is not a constant but white noise of mean zero. An I(1) process is, in ARIMA (Autoregressive, integrated, moving average) nomenclature a (0,1,0) process. Life gets complicated, though because an AR process with a near unit lag-1 coefficient may not be distinguishable from an I(1) process depending on the level of noise.DeWitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06921810076159914432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91626468518720964632010-03-07T14:29:36.835-05:002010-03-07T14:29:36.835-05:00I'm not getting how this is at all a sensible ...I'm not getting how this is at all a sensible thing to do. If you "difference" GHG forcings twice you definitely don't get something "stationary" in the sense of constant. Is there something else I'm missing? GHG forcings are non-polynomial in time, as are all the others, as is the temperature response. Polynomial fits might make sense over short periods of time while changes are roughly linear, or running through a maximum (since almost every max/min is quadratic). But we don't have either of those here...Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.com