tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post6527210653833388525..comments2024-03-29T04:13:44.353-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Nielson-Gammon Has Some Advice For Watts And McIntyrebigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-89678020940916091632007-10-28T10:45:00.000-04:002007-10-28T10:45:00.000-04:00Hello all!Hello all!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-17005262820437642852007-10-27T15:17:00.000-04:002007-10-27T15:17:00.000-04:00Good job!Good job!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-87183197099768741772007-10-26T15:40:00.000-04:002007-10-26T15:40:00.000-04:00Magnific!Magnific!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-71319830956066519892007-10-26T15:17:00.000-04:002007-10-26T15:17:00.000-04:00Please write anything else!Please write anything else!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-26204190012527294672007-10-26T14:04:00.000-04:002007-10-26T14:04:00.000-04:00Pl4K9A Nice Article.Pl4K9A Nice Article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-80100756289471225502007-10-26T04:45:00.000-04:002007-10-26T04:45:00.000-04:00zxRm7X Your blog is great. Articles is interesting...zxRm7X Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-45258617199548704932007-09-27T22:26:00.000-04:002007-09-27T22:26:00.000-04:00Question for Steve Bloom - On a local denialist's ...Question for Steve Bloom - <BR/>On a local denialist's blog I <A HREF="http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2007/09/the-next-solar-.html#comment-84204236" REL="nofollow">asked</A> Anthony Watts if it was true that he'd banned you from his blog; he <A HREF="http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2007/09/the-next-solar-.html#comment-84286320" REL="nofollow">replied</A> no, <BR/><I>"he's not banned... He just refuses to answer this question which was and is germain</I>[sic]<I> to the discussion:<BR/><BR/>"Why do the USHCN data adjustments add a positive bias to the surface temperature record."<BR/><BR/>I've told him that once he answers that question, I'll gladly post it and he can continue to post after that."</I><BR/><BR/>Steve, is this account accurate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-15702274755320115572007-09-25T22:17:00.000-04:002007-09-25T22:17:00.000-04:00lazar, are we looking at the same graph? ;) I'm lo...lazar, are we looking at the same graph? ;) I'm looking at CRN12 compared to GISTEMP over the last 110 years.<BR/><BR/>The GISTEMP data may underestimate the historical temperature in the earlier parts of the last century by about . 2 degrees. Meaning GISTEMP may be overstating the historical temperature increase in the US by approx. .2 degrees.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-17200974697121586272007-09-25T17:54:00.000-04:002007-09-25T17:54:00.000-04:00Paul S,BCL claims there is no "solid" answer yet f...Paul S,<BR/><BR/><I>BCL claims there is no "solid" answer yet from the data, but John V's insightful analysis of the surfacestation data tentatively suggests that GISTEMP overreports historical warming in the US48 by approximately .2 degrees. That's a lot.</I><BR/><BR/>Looking at John V's analysis, specifically comment <A HREF="http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061#comment-137949" REL="nofollow">#88</A>, the graph shows GISTEMP trend is 0.2 degrees <B>cooler</B> than the CRN 5 ('poor') station trend. It is about (eyeballing) 0.025 C warmer than the CRN1,2 ('good') station trend. What is the source for your claim GISTEMP overestimates by 0.2 C?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-86597989703620492232007-09-25T17:15:00.000-04:002007-09-25T17:15:00.000-04:00So, how has everybody here cut their GHG emissions...So, how has everybody here cut their GHG emissions by 40%? Since you're all believers, I'm sure you've even surpassed that figure, right?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-26591611336931547462007-09-25T14:56:00.000-04:002007-09-25T14:56:00.000-04:00A caveat boris, these results are all tentative; w...A caveat boris, these results are all tentative; worthy of discussion nonetheless.<BR/><BR/>The link is:<BR/>http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2061#comments<BR/><BR/>See posts #86, 87, 88.<BR/>Link to the code used in the analysis is post #142.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-73598651654557574142007-09-25T08:30:00.000-04:002007-09-25T08:30:00.000-04:00I prefer to be informed. Go ahead, inform me. Perh...I prefer to be informed. Go ahead, inform me. Perhaps at heart you know you are making some fundamental error?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-29355238819334889302007-09-25T04:15:00.000-04:002007-09-25T04:15:00.000-04:00== boris said: ==="I thought we were talking about...== boris said: ==<BR/>="I thought we were talking about your supposed proof that the GISS record is .2 deg C too warm?"=<BR/><BR/>I was, and since you were uninformed on the subject (and preferred to remain that way) I went on to NASA's recent error.<BR/><BR/>="Why on earth would you want to change the subject from that?"=<BR/><BR/>Why on earth not? Nothing left to say here on that subject. <BR/><BR/>="Unless, that is, you are making it up."=<BR/><BR/>Awwww! How did you know! Who TOLD you? <BR/><BR/>Nope. I don't make things up.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-7026178486150127332007-09-24T18:07:00.000-04:002007-09-24T18:07:00.000-04:00Why on earth would you want to change the subject ...<I>Why on earth would you want to change the subject from that? Unless, that is, you are making it up.</I><BR/><BR/>Paul S. is a Conserva-liar. He is orthodox in his support for the Conservatives. He's queefing a few posts up about McGuinty and public funding for religious instruction, of all things.<BR/><BR/>How much more Tory cock can Paul S. get down his throat? Well, we'll see..Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-64800626387677136802007-09-24T15:41:00.000-04:002007-09-24T15:41:00.000-04:00I thought we were talking about your supposed proo...I thought we were talking about your supposed proof that the GISS record is .2 deg C too warm? Why on earth would you want to change the subject from that? Unless, that is, you are making it up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-44256262355269380772007-09-24T14:23:00.000-04:002007-09-24T14:23:00.000-04:00It was NASA whose temperature error was a secret f...It was NASA whose temperature error was a secret for 7 1/2 years boris. All the climate experts in the world couldn't find the glaring mistake until an amateur pointed it out to them. <BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-91271167187482145722007-09-24T09:01:00.000-04:002007-09-24T09:01:00.000-04:00Paul,Aha, you've found the temp record in error, b...Paul,<BR/><BR/>Aha, you've found the temp record in error, but you're keeping it secret. How clever!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-20201708061068181852007-09-23T17:57:00.000-04:002007-09-23T17:57:00.000-04:00*shh*....adults talking.*shh*....adults talking.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-184980500981387612007-09-23T14:34:00.000-04:002007-09-23T14:34:00.000-04:00steve bloom said:"This is of a piece with AW's ina...steve bloom said:<BR/><BR/><B>"This is of a piece with AW's inability to admit that he's applying the CRN standards improperly."</B><BR/><BR/>That' a bit rich considering climate professionals consistently violate their own standards in regards to the USHCN. <BR/><BR/>ti-guy said:<BR/><B>"*shhh*...Adults talking."</B><BR/><BR/>And you're what? An adult sock puppet?<BR/><BR/>boris said:<BR/><B>"Yeah, right. I missed that post."</B><BR/><BR/>I'm not surprised. ;)<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-64234082970739168472007-09-23T09:22:00.000-04:002007-09-23T09:22:00.000-04:00"John V's insightful analysis of the surfacestatio..."John V's insightful analysis of the surfacestation data tentatively suggests that GISTEMP overreports historical warming in the US48 by approximately .2 degrees. That's a lot."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, right. I missed that post, and the ten thousand McSteve would have made if he thought it were true (or even that it could look true for a while).<BR/><BR/>Yeah, Watts was also touting the Neptune warming paper and had a post titled "It's the sun, stupid!" where he managed not to notice flat solar trends since 1950.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-43817446537334802962007-09-23T06:21:00.000-04:002007-09-23T06:21:00.000-04:00Is BCL patting you on the head as you type that Mi...<I>Is BCL patting you on the head as you type that Mini Me? ;)<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul S</I><BR/><BR/>*shhh*...Adults talking.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-13160776327283156612007-09-23T02:36:00.000-04:002007-09-23T02:36:00.000-04:00Looks like I've now suffered the fate of those who...Looks like I've now suffered the fate of those who would dare to audit the auditors: Anthony Watts has <A HREF="http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/raising_walhalla_part_2.html#comment-137512" REL="nofollow">banned</A> me from his blog! I had caught him red-handed holding up as good science a 2002 Balling and Idso paper that relied on the UAH MSU and SONDE datasets to impute that there was an improper positive correction made to the USHCN data. I pointed out to him that both of those datasets had been found to be unreliable a couple of years later, and so B+I 2002 was itself no longer valid. Rather than making the correction like an honest auditor, he argued that the paper was still good science because subsequent unrelated work by his crowd had created a different basis for questioning the USHCN correction. When I pointed out that this argument made no sense, he banned me. <BR/><BR/>This is of a piece with AW's inability to admit that he's applying the CRN standards improperly. <BR/><BR/>As others have noted, Steve McIntyre has a similar problem eating his errors. OTOH AW did give me major credit for driving RP Sr. out of the blog business, so I got something worthwhile out of the experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-71948499826067840502007-09-23T01:42:00.000-04:002007-09-23T01:42:00.000-04:00really good work, BCL. Don't cut back on the leng...really good work, BCL. Don't cut back on the length, content is worth it. Besides, it'll help you lose most deniers about 1/4 of the way through so you'll only have to deal with the standard cut and paste jobs and the very clever "you left wing, moonbat, Gorebull idol worshiper" lines.900ft Jesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01882830831096870992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-51773447118872178522007-09-22T20:02:00.000-04:002007-09-22T20:02:00.000-04:00Is BCL patting you on the head as you type that Mi...Is BCL patting you on the head as you type that Mini Me? ;)<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Paul SAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-91900314689640921712007-09-22T16:36:00.000-04:002007-09-22T16:36:00.000-04:00BCL comes from that peculiar type of lame socialis...<I>BCL comes from that peculiar type of lame socialism endemic to Toronto</I><BR/><BR/>When you assert stunningly stupid things like this, how do expect anyone to take you seriously?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I have to be the first one to post, otherwise, whatever wit BCL has injected into his post will get anti-climaxed by some miserable and humourless right-tard troll.Ti-Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06620550471437012866noreply@blogger.com