Disqus - Latest Comments for gerjanp

Re: Orders of Integration

Jan Pompe — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:19:18 -0000

Steve I can go along with all of that.

Re: CSIRO and BoM Report

Jan Pompe — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 23:07:14 -0000

"It's a perfectly legitimate topic. And it does correspond to the period of major CO2 increase."

Oh when exactly did this start?

Have you looked at the last 15000 years of Vostok ice cores?

It's intriguing stuff.

Re: Orders of Integration

Jan Pompe — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:51:33 -0000

"It's a response to the fact that we're burning 10 Gt of carbon a year. "

and that varies in response to what?

There are actually times in recent history where fossil fuel burning has reduced for a while and CO2 just kept right on rising so we can at least guess that it's not just fossil fuel use that accounts for the rise. I see no reason to assume CO2 rise is not stochastic except maybe that it's chaotic.

Re: Orders of Integration

Jan Pompe — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:52:01 -0000

"Whether something is global, regional or local doesn't seem to matter much to integration order either."

I'm fairly sure it doesn't. If there is zero trend it will be I(0) if non zero linear it will be I(1) if nonlinear non zero it will be I(p | p>1). At least that is how I understood it.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 08:37:02 -0000

Welcome back Steve I trust it was a good trip.

I'm glad that you've sorted out your bugs with the ESRL time series. I agree the downward trend in the mid to high troposphere is not as large as the upward trend down low. What difference that makes I don't know but see my response to David.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:30:48 -0000

There was some discussion between Garth and Ferenc in Melbourne a couple of weeks ago on this issue. Garth was saying that he felt a small change high in the troposphere where there was little water vapour would make a bigger difference near the surface than even a large change low where it is already saturated. Ferenc saying that his radiometric analysis suggests it's not so important that the changes are in the mid to high troposphere.

I'm firmly on the fence on this one for now. Clearly more work needs to be done.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:29:24 -0000

Nick the vapour pressure of water is very much related to the air temperature. Water can't hang around too long where the air is thin an cold and that is why it is dry. The cold is also why it's dry on the poles.

Ha any one really considered that his low SH and RH at higher altitudes is having an effect on the worlds glaciers?

I thing it would be.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:11:55 -0000

I see. I think it probably isn't quite right in the face of other warmists (Arthur Smith comes to mind) who have claimed the fingerprint of CO2 induced warming is a cooler stratosphere.

It kinda doesn't gel too well with it being able to hold more water vapour. Can't be sure also can't be sure it's worth USD 15 for the article either.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:57:37 -0000

"So this overview of the importance of SH for AGW based on ESRL data is wrong?"

Not wrong but may be suspect. It is quite likely that the data for the early part, the late 40s and 50s isn't the best but we really have no way of testing this or rechecking so we are stuck with what we have.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:39:00 -0000

"if SH has increased at 300 mb that would be a slam dunk for AGW "

The Data from NOAA tells us that the globally averaged SH above 700 mb has generally decreased. There is no support in the data for the belief that the water vapour increase will diffuse upward as it has become warmer or as CO2 has increased.

Here is another level 400 mb monthly instead of annual this time:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ps...

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:26:36 -0000

"Can't some of the water vapour versus altitude relationship be examined from ground-based or sonde barometric pressure?"

Yep it's done with radiosondes equipped with thermometer, hygrometer and altimeter.

Trouble some of the older data is somewhat questionable because some (being conservative) radiosondes were launched without properly recording fiduciary and calibration information making review or reanalysis rather difficult.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:08:23 -0000

Here Dave

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ps...

you just check the raw data output button

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 02:05:20 -0000

Here is another a little closer to the ground

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ps...

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:58:07 -0000

Yes Steve I get that too if I restrict the area to Greenwhich on the equator.

No globally for 300 mb you get:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ps...

Have fun do you think it will take you three years to work it out?

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:18:04 -0000

LOL

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:03:16 -0000

Look - we've been here, done this, many, many times before Jan.

and I don't quite understand why you still don't get it.

I think you need another year to think about it. Tata for now.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:28:14 -0000

"No strawmen by me."

LOL

I think we can leave it here we have the plot of the upper troposphere specific humidity whicch shows just what David stated I'll repeat it once more

"In this case, there is an obvious relationship to Miskolczi’s theory of constant greenhouse effect, where levels of water vapour in the upper atmosphere adjust to maintain a constant greenhouse effect. "

"ALL THAT HAPPENS is the the SH trend gets FLATTER.""

reality check! If you stick with verifying the actual theory instead of one of your own (the strawman) and check what happens above 700 mb you will see the decline and the negative trend.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:37:10 -0000

"Average annual Specific Humidity FROM THE SURFACE UP TO 300 mb rises from ~15 g/kg in 1949 to ~17.5 g/kg in 2010""

Now check the theory as stated by Dave and others.

" In this case, there is an obvious relationship to Miskolczi’s theory of constant greenhouse effect, where levels of water vapour in the upper atmosphere adjust to maintain a constant greenhouse effect. "

You want argue from the ground up but that is NOT the theory you are fighting a strawman here.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:06:02 -0000

Your numbers are rather large for upper atmosphere.

http://i229.photobucket.com...

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:32:47 -0000

Still master of ad hominem I see I'm done.

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:30:00 -0000

Were you standing on your head while looking at it?

Re: Cointegration Summary

Jan Pompe — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 04:27:33 -0000

is to be observed here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ps... and also in Garth Paltridges most recent paper.

Re: Miskolczi Revisited

Jan Pompe — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:22:24 -0000

Thanks David wasn't sure what your were getting at there.

Re: Miskolczi Revisited

Jan Pompe — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:58:16 -0000

Don't we need a sample period longer than 55 years to actually identify that we have a ~60 year period cycle?

Re: Rahmstorf 2007 Discredited

Jan Pompe — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:25:23 -0000

"R was not a co-author of the Copenhagen report."

So he gave them a picture without telling them what it was?

That's even worse.