Comments on: “Lights Out Upstairs” http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/ by Steve McIntyre Sat, 18 May 2013 19:12:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Dear NOAA and Seth, which 1930′s were you referring to when you say July is the record warmest? | Watts Up With That? http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-346566 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 21:04:23 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-346566 [...] I’ve recovered the graphs from Hansen’s 1999 press release. This was originally part of “Lights Out Upstairs”a guest post by Steve McIntyre on my old original blog. Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in [...]

]]> By: NCDC data shows that the contiguous USA has not warmed in the past decade, summers are cooler, winters are getting colder | Watts Up With That? http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-308935 Sun, 06 Nov 2011 16:11:03 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-308935 [...] and recovered the graphs from Hansen’s 1999 press release. This was originally part of “Lights Out Upstairs” a guest post by Steve McIntyre on my old original blog. Just look at how much warmer 1934 was in [...]

]]> By: Sam Urbinto http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99109 Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:07:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99109 My question is if the “monthly more-or-less-automatic updates” James refers to are the same adjustments that Gavin said over at Real Climate were in badly written fortran, done by one person and are “a mixture of scripts, programs, utilities, dead ends, previous methodologies and unused options” and therefore not ready to run out of the box and useless in and of themselves? The ones they refuse to give up because what they think about the code (better to replicate the method) is the only valid viewpoint and any other viewpoint must be “proven” first?

Or does “monthly more-or-less-automatic updates” mean just TOBs that some other software handles? Or what?

]]> By: Demesure http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99108 Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:16:43 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99108 According to Anthony Watts’ graph, the rest of the world should emit as much CO2 as the US to cool down.

]]> By: Rootless http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99107 Thu, 16 Aug 2007 00:02:42 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99107 I have always discarded data without provenance. This must include data that has been adjusted by algorithms that are undisclosed.
What Steve has shown by his research is that data and data manipulations MUST be open to critique. Any data that is ‘shady’ must be excluded from scientific discussion and the ‘scientists’ ostracised until their full data sets and manipulations are made available to critical review.

]]> By: Bruce http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99106 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:59:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99106 So. If the more sparse and less controlled global data are seriously influenced by cack SU, FSU, China, etc data and political IPCC methodology, such that if I assume approximating overall US data as a sample point to form the reasonable equivalent of a fixed sample point on a (pseudo)homogenous world, this might be an as-reasonable estimate of the world situation as screwed data and IPCC analysis uncertainties? We are being asked to pony up irretrievable trillions, and drastic permanent governmental control structures, on a peak-to-peak basis of ~0.15 degrees C increase across 7 decades with Hansens’ new 5 year averaging and -0.0x degrees on the annual temperatures??? (per the anomaly graph in his “A Light On Upstairs”)

Given a highly varying planet, I think I want to wait the 20 years to see the rest of the US “cycle” datawise and, of course, a 20 years review of methods and (new) investigators.

]]> By: GMF http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99105 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:49:14 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99105 Actually, it’s the law of diminishing credibility.

]]> By: Chris Christner http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99104 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:51:00 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99104 Why do bigcitylib and other alarmists downplay Steve’s error correction as insignificant, yet clamor for the US to pony up billions for Kyoto when the temperature reduction would only be 0.07 degree C by 2050?

I believe that’s called the “law of diminishing returns,” bigcitylib. Look it up.

]]> By: John Lang http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99103 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:02:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99103 Anthony, Steve and/or John, it would be more powerful for the graphs if you took Hansen’s first US temp graph (where 1998 was in 5th place) and the last one (before the error was discovered with 1998 as the record year) …

… into a Before and After GIF animation like one person did with the Arctic sea ice data changes made in January as below.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif

]]> By: jeez http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/11/lights-out-upstairs/#comment-99102 Wed, 15 Aug 2007 08:19:11 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1891#comment-99102 RE: 6

Two graphs which demonstrate a good correlation of US and Global temperatures until post WWII Soviet Union policies and the Chinese Cultural revolution destroyed the reliability of weather records in Siberia and China.

EOM

Really EOM.

]]>