quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

Much of this 25 year increase can be explained through the urban heat island effect.
]

Ballcocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Ah the wonderful world of Wiki - again.

Given the choice of credibility of the Wiki free-for-all against the blogs of respected scientists and meterologist - I'll take the later thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

Ah the wonderful world of Wiki - again.

Given the choice of credibility of the Wiki free-for-all against the blogs of respected scientists and meterologist - I'll take the later thanks.

As should be well known to anyone, Wiki is not in itself authoritative, and attempts only to present a NPOV. The value is in the references and links at the foot of the articles.

Which references would you add to those?

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

Ah the wonderful world of Wiki - again.

Given the choice of credibility of the Wiki free-for-all against the blogs of respected scientists and meterologist - I'll take the later thanks.

As should be well known to anyone, Wiki is not in itself authoritative, and attempts only to present a NPOV. The value is in the references and links at the foot of the articles.

Which references would you add to those?

Then provide those references and not Wiki - thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

Then provide those references and not Wiki - thanks.

This is idiotic. Why should I post a bunch of links (which our mods might delete anyway) when the Wiki authors have already listed most of them, and in an overall context?

I've asked before for alternatives to Wikipedia for giving overviews of topics and no one has offered one. Perhaps I can suggest one for the reality-challenged? http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Are you going to post the links to the blogs of "respected scientists and meterologist" you mention?

One point worth noting is that some of the science pages are editorially controlled in Wiki. I know that William Connolly is involved as an editor for example. Perhaps whether the page is editor-controlled should be checked before posting.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

I do doubt this last sentence of yours Steve. I would rather go back to first principles and look at the quality of the sites. Using airports as Parker doesn't fill me with confidence. The adjustments all seem to be upwards with the past becoming colder (particularly those pesky 1930s in the US).

The Parker study looks at 1950-2000. Many adjustments are downward when the station is resited from a more urban to a less urban setting.

I was making a more general observation here rather than Parker specifically.

quote:

quote:

Lets work out what are genuinely rural sites as defined by the World Meteorological Office then use them to develop a rural network that we can have confidence in. Let also the methodology for adjustments be open and available to all.

At the level of doubt of some of the climateauditors there is no such thing as a rural site, so this appeal to an ideal world is never going to be satisfied.

Who's appealing for an ideal world? Let the project complete and see where the land lies.

quote:

People are making genuine attempts to look for urban biases and not finding them. It is not clear to me as to how much adjustment Parker's sites have undergone if any - the US airport stations he has used are probably of good quality. But regardless of this, his method should identify such adjustments because they are likely to have a different impact on windy versus calm day statistics.

I don't share your faith in the adjustments as these are arbitrary ad-hoc decisions. Also, Anthony Watts and friends are running a project which will assess the quality of all the sites in the USHCN (good, bad and indifferent). This isn't what you're projecting onto them as to motivations.

Let the project complete and the chips fall as they may.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
One point worth noting is that some of the science pages are editorially controlled in Wiki. I know that William Connolly is involved as an editor for example. Perhaps whether the page is editor-controlled should be checked before posting.

Again, where are your references?

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by APL:

Much of this 25 year increase can be explained through the urban heat island effect.
]

Ballcocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island

Ah the wonderful world of Wiki - again.

Given the choice of credibility of the Wiki free-for-all against the blogs of respected scientists and meterologist - I'll take the later thanks.

So let's see links to the respected scientist's blogs that state that "Much of this 25 year increase can be explained through the urban heat island effect."

Occam was a 14th century philosopher famous for his "the simplest explanation is usually right".

They're even detecting changes in the gravity of Greenland due to AGW.

Hear Parker's presentation itself on the UHI effect (or lack of it).

http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2005/techprogram/paper_84663.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
One point worth noting is that some of the science pages are editorially controlled in Wiki. I know that William Connolly is involved as an editor for example. Perhaps whether the page is editor-controlled should be checked before posting.

Do you have a preference between articles being a free-for-all and being editorially controlled? If so, when would each apply?

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
One point worth noting is that some of the science pages are editorially controlled in Wiki. I know that William Connolly is involved as an editor for example. Perhaps whether the page is editor-controlled should be checked before posting.

Do you have a preference between articles being a free-for-all and being editorially controlled? If so, when would each apply?

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and also stop inferring all kinds of motivations not justified by my post.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
eg.

LIKW
Also, the problem for M&M, Wegman and anybody else is that Mann has never produced the actual data and methodology he specifically used.
UNQUOTE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_Stick_graph

When Mann complied, all of the data was available for McIntyre.

Nope you continue to fail to grasp the point I'm making.

The data that was made available did not allow others to replicate the results published in MBH98/99. Both Wahl & Ammann and McIntyre & McKinrick published a much lower level of correlation using the r2 statistic than what was published by Mann.

MBH98/99 claimed a high level of skill using r2. This has not been proven accurate. In fact the corrigendum issued by Mann in Nature acknowledges this.

This isn't difficult to understand.

Had the data and computer code been achieved with the publication of the articles (standard good practice which journals aspire to) then this wouldn't be such an issue.

Nobody denies that the methodology was flawed and that the sampled was tainted by the inclusion of the bristlecone data (which is accepted is not a temperature proxy but does have a hockey stick shape to it).

This shouldn't have been a major issue and for me it isn't as a paper in itself. I'm all for new methodological ideas being tried but the paper needs to be seen as that. The flaws in it are to be expected as these things are never perfect the first time round. Its the usage of the paper and the behaviour of certain individuals which is the issue.

LIKW I'd wish you'd put references to all your claims. I've given at least two (and that's without refering to Realclimate). Here's a third or do you somehow know better than them?

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/fakeddata.html

QUOTE
A more detailed analysis can be heard in an audio recording of the National Academy of Sciences' press briefing. Despite all of this McIntyre continues to insist the hockey stick is broken in numerous blog entires. 1, 2, 3 McIntyre has not been able to get another paper published on the matter.
UNQUOTE

I like the last part. McIntyre's now whistling in the wind.

I'm And as for all this "Mann's friends", "impartial" New Scientist, Wikipedia being edited by biased folk, etc. put-your-references-down. Now that isn't difficult to understand.

Try Occam's razor now and then.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
Try Occam's razor now and then.

Prefer Wilkinson's myself. Each to their own.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

Stop getting your knickers in a twist and also stop inferring all kinds of motivations not justified by my post.

You complain that Wiki is a free-for-all so cannot be trusted.

You mention that William Connolley is an editor of Wiki science articles, so not all Wiki article are a free-for-all.

Can you answer a simple question about what you would consider a reasonable alternative to Wiki for giving an overview on a topic?

That is all I'm asking for.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
You complain that Wiki is a free-for-all so cannot be trusted.

Where?

quote:

You mention that William Connolley is an editor of Wiki science articles, so not all Wiki article are a free-for-all.

That's correct.

quote:

Can you answer a simple question about what you would consider a reasonable alternative to Wiki for giving an overview on a topic?

That is all I'm asking for.

Its the first time you actually got to a transparent question. What's the point behind the question? Academic advice to undergraduates is use Wiki as a starting point for your research but don't quote it as authority. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

I'm And as for all this "Mann's friends", "impartial" New Scientist, Wikipedia being edited by biased folk, etc. put-your-references-down. Now that isn't difficult to understand.

Your grammar and sentence construction is difficult to follow.

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

Try Occam's razor now and then.

I applied Occam's razor to palaeoclimatology and the simple answer was that it is worthless when trying to reconstruct past climate temperatures unless specifically looking at a micro-climate.

The simple problem of optimum growth conditions for trees means that even if the largest limiter on growth is temperature, there remains an optimum temperature for growth. If temperature rises beyond this optimum, growth levels will decline.

It thereby becomes impossible to determine a clear signal of climate temperature as a reduced growth rate can indicate cooler or warmer temperatures (compared with the optimum).

Some reading on principles can be found here and a recent paper from D'Arrigo et al (yes the same Roseanne D'Arrigo who testified at the NAS panel that "you have to cherry-pick if you want to make cherry-pie) from 2004 published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles demonstrating the inverted U-shaped for tree growth in a PDF format.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:
Where?

Apologies: it was APL.

quote:

Its the first time you actually got to a transparent question. What's the point behind the question? Academic advice to undergraduates is use Wiki as a starting point for your research but don't quote it as authority. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

I agree entirely. APL appears to distrust it because it's a free-for-all whereas you point out that science articles are controlled (and not necessarily by people of whom you approve- my interpretation I admit).

I was asking for anyone who doesn't trust Wiki to present an alternative and I've asked for it in a simple, transparent way several times now.

I welcome any suggestions.

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

I'm And as for all this "Mann's friends", "impartial" New Scientist, Wikipedia being edited by biased folk, etc. put-your-references-down. Now that isn't difficult to understand.

Your grammar and sentence construction is difficult to follow.

put-your-references-down. Now that isn't difficult to understand

True Sceptic.

Because you have asked "anyone who doesn't trust Wiki to present an alternative" I've posted this response!

I can't remember if I actually 'posted' this reply to podbod (I can't find the link), but I certainly prepared it as a response to a reference to Wiki by podbod on the subject of Total Solar Irradiation (for insolation purposes).

My Quote.
podbod.

Sorry for the delay, I must have surfed around the world ten times before I found a solar spectrum graph that I could half trust.

The problem with your IPCC links is that the IPCC only speculate on the things that they are mandated to speculate upon. The IPCC make no continuing mention of a stratospheric radiative forcing - or ozone destroying - compound/element unless it was 'ordained' to be significant in its nature for inclusion by the IPCC, or by way of the 'Montreal Accord' (at least that is apparently the way it has ended up).

The fact that an element (O3) has been greatly anthropologically reduced in the atmosphere (particularly the stratosphere) doesn't seem to be considered as significantly anthropological in the IPCC's mandate as I believe it should (apparently only the reduction of it is anthropologic, so now it has depleted at the poles its action is mostly ignored and 'other' radiative forcings are the main anthropologic 'focus'), they then continue only to consider that 'harmful' anthropological O3 in the troposphere is a difficult element to predict due to measurement problems and has an observed increase in its abundance (this mostly excludes the reason for the anthropologic 'cooling' of the stratosphere and the subsequent inclusion of tropospheric molecular oxygen (just as potent a 'radiative forcing gas' as O3) in radiative absorption of the ultraviolet spectrum (and above?) other than the fact that the stratosphere is no longer 'forcing' the troposphere) which is expected to be difficult to model.

I now presume that UV (and higher frequencies?) tropospheric and surface insolation are incorrectly modelled at high latitudes by the IPCC. A wide high frequency 'insolation window' has fairly recently opened around the polar regions to the troposphere and surface, from which the extra energy levels can only be outwardly dissipated through the IR window that has been slightly obscured by CO2.

The IPCC obviously don't have a big enough budget for their work because they do not have the purchasing power to buy the 'raw' data to base their findings on with any 'true' accuracy! The definition just isn't there! How many times have you used a Multi-meter and taken a reading at 'less' than half 'full scale deflection' (this is exacerbated with a Digital Multi-meter). I'll bet you can't count them, well the IPCC is doing just the same thing. I could 'wax lyrical' about accurate measurement and the constraint that 'conventional representation' imposes on 'real data', but I won't.

I appreciate your offering of a solar spectrum graph, but the convention of this graph is such that it almost completely negates its 'purposes for interpretation' (it's not just the scale that is 'crap'). In that:

1. Wavelength amplitudes follow a restrictive 'convention' and wavelength span does not include the longer 'radio' wavelengths as data (which can also have a heating effect). The graph is incomplete.
2. A false 'cut-off' is envoked at 2800 angstroms (280 nm). Where is the 'X-ray' spectrum, the 'soft X-ray' spectrum and the 'deep UV' spectrum to say the least (I suspect there was a 'glass window' in the way of this data, as glass begins to lose transparency at 3000 angstroms and becomes 'opaic' at about 2800 angstroms [10 angstroms = 1 nm] ). Again, the graph is incomplete and not representative of the solar spectrum.

I offer you a graphical representation that I 'half' believe to be a plausible representation of the solar spectrum outside of our atmosphere at one astronomical unit. If you paste the address into your web browser destination dialogue box you should get there;

Http://www.spacewx.com/solar_spectrum.html

At least I find this graph partially 'honest' at frequencies greater than the visible spectrum (shorter wavelengths than the visible spectrum), but their representations at wavelengths longer than the visible spectrum follow completely 'conventional standards' as reference data.

However, this debate shall continue until 'convention' achieves an 'effective' compromise with the 'real world'. Convention has always been an enemy of truth. Just look at what happened to Copernicus and how he had to hide his findings until convention was more accepting of them! To coin a phrase from Oliver Cromwell "I expect to see the portrait with 'warts and all'"!

Perhaps I'm 'nit-picking' again, but if we don't 'monitor' the entire solar spectrum we won't even know if we've missed an important 'event' (throws of SETI?).

Quote:
The extra energy that gets through from the ozone depletion must be less than the energy that escapes due to its destruction.
EOQ.
Energy can not be manufactured or destroyed. This is not a play on words, but I understand your meaning.
The energy in our example enters the 'system' in question at a high resonant frequency via a 'window' that 'permits' the entry (admittance frequency). After its entry to the system, the energy interacts with 'catalysts' within the system. The result of this interaction with system catalysts reduces the resonant frequency of the energy. To escape the system the energy can not now use the window of its admittance because its resonant frequency is too low for this window due to its interaction with the system's catalysts. The energy only 'emits' from the system when its path encounters a window that permits its exit (emission frequency) at its lower resonance frequency.
The net result of all that is that following 'admittance', the emitting energy always leaves some energy behind with the 'catalysts' when it 'emits' at a lower frequency. This causes an 'energy forcing' that is usually recognised as 'base' heat (either sensible, or latent).
Quote:
The amount of IR that gets emitted by the Earth must dwarf that which we receive from the Sun as UV.
EOQ.
The two (IR and UV), together with all other energy frequencies are impossible to formulate under this premise.
EO My Q.
This is a typical case of Wiki's inability to provide an accurate definition of a subject because of both 'subject ambiguity' and 'technical depth' (not to mention the 'I've been programmed with this before and if you think better update me' syndrome). The typical 'watchword' here is authority (but which authority holds our confidence).
Are you confident of 'Wiki'? Because I'm not! I'll use it as a 'starter for ten', then 'Google' (or look elsewhere) for something else.
Please note, my input is only conjecture!

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

quote:

Originally posted by Lost in Kate Winslet:

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:

I'm And as for all this "Mann's friends", "impartial" New Scientist, Wikipedia being edited by biased folk, etc. put-your-references-down. Now that isn't difficult to understand.

Your grammar and sentence construction is difficult to follow.

put-your-references-down. Now that isn't difficult to understand

I do, when I refer to the IPCC (that's the 4AR or TAR), NAS panel (fairly obvious), Wahl & Ammann I've mentioned earlier where their 2006 paper was published and the fact that they only have one paper on this subject in publication, the Mann corrigendum is in Nature as was the original article - it wouldn't be anywhere else.

If you read the text, the references are mentioned. What's the issue?