Comments on: Eureka http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 25 May 2013 21:50:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Mike Doran http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98147 Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:01:51 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98147 Three hours from Eureka I know that it’s temp has NOTHING to do with the asphalt but plenty to do with being next to the OCEAN.

]]> By: KevinUK http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98146 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:42:56 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98146 #4 Paul S

I wonder what Steve M thinks about being referred to as ‘one other doubter’?

]]> By: MarkW http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98145 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:54:23 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98145 Speaking of thermometer totems, check out the new “lights = 1″ thread.

]]> By: steven mosher http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98144 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:48:03 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98144 RE 6.

what’s the deviation along the transect?
Good question. Go ahead and point to the following.

1. Hansen’s data for this.
2. Hansen’s method for calculating this.

Did you mean deviation BEFORE 2000 or after?

When Hansen comes clean on his Y2K problemo, then Dano, you can book him.

]]> By: Stan Palmer http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98143 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:52:02 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98143 re 7

Come to think of it, the site standards must have been created for a reason. Measurements of the sort described in 6 were likely to have been taken into consideration in their creation.

]]> By: Stan Palmer http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98142 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:28:28 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98142

Oh, wait: we aren’t measuring temperatures to see

Isn’t that the problem that this effort addressing. Why was this not done previously?

]]> By: Dano http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98141 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 02:03:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98141 Wow. That’s horrible.

What’s the deviation along the transect?

Oh, wait: we aren’t measuring temperatures to see.

I guess I’ll read the paper when it gets accepted to E&E as the new Thermometer Totem.

Can’t wait.

Best,

D

]]> By: TCO http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98140 Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:18:05 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98140 Oke-dokey. Let’s talk Oke.

I think just doing a general regression and keeping Tmax1, Tmax2, Tmin1, Tmin2, would give more parameters. Might work better. Get some function based off of that.

Also don’t see how he has really proved that “R” is such a great metric. I mean, has he compared it to other ones? How about just using daytime temp difference, not “cooling”. Has he done the work to show wehther that works just as good?

]]> By: Paul S http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98139 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:45:17 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98139 I know this is off topic (delete if necessary) but Newsweek has a real doozer of an article on “denialists”. I also believe they refer to Steve McIntyre by inference in the article. Like most articles on AGW, my head almost exploded hurtling into space at high velocity ;) . Only on this site and a few others can I get some sense of the issues and questions surrounding AGW without everything being presented as dogma. Oh, and good work Anthony.

The Truth About Denial
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/

]]> By: Lawrence Hickey http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/06/1867/#comment-98138 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:26:41 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1867#comment-98138 Well it like the three stooges episode. One stooge scientist says Eureka and the other says you don’t smell so good either.

]]>