|
Post by glc on Mar 12, 2010 17:04:50 GMT
Well you obviously do not know what YOU are talking about.I think I have a reasonable knowledge of Statistics. As a little primer on Climatological Averages and their problems I suggest that you read (I know that you won't but it would be good) :
"Does a Global Temperature Exist?"
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdfRead it. The skew in data is the huge variation in OATs that are being used as inputs into the unspecified 'averaging' . The errors and assumptions are to do with choice of averaging methods, choice of inputs into the methods etc etc.Your explanation is starting to get a bit vague again. Give me an example of skewed data and how it might arise in a dataset. And does this apply to all datasets? Mapping algorithms are a continual source of error in assessment of 'area' and 'distance' and as we have all seen fundamental erros being made by 'experts' (even as basic as mixing metric and imperial units when calculating trajectories) these supposedly simplistic areas bear being examined.Whatever. ESPECIALLY as we are now in the rather paradoxical state of unexpected snow fall and cold weather in many areas of the NH that 'never' get snow simultaneous with being told that this is the warmest average global temperature period on record. Ok I get it now - because its cold where you are it must be cold throughout the NH Lower Trop. Also which places never get snow and have had it recently? How many? How widespread is this phenomenon? When such mismatches occur scientists go back and check assumptions and methods and whether the process being used to generate metrics is actually appropriate or useful. There aren't any mismatches. The anomaly maps (surface and LT) show which regions of the world have been warm and which have been cold. There is no inconsistency with what the maps show and what we've been experiencing in our tiny areas of the world.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Mar 12, 2010 17:43:12 GMT
I liked the conclusion from the link above: "...The purpose of this paper was to explain the fundamental meaninglessness of so-called global temperature data. The problem can be (and has been) happily ignored in the name of the empirical study of climate. But nature is not obliged to respect our statistical conventions and conceptual shortcuts. Debates over the levels and trends in so-called global temperatures will continue interminably, as will disputes over the significance of these things for the human experience of climate, until some physical basis is established for the meaningful measurement of climate variables, if indeed that is even possible. It may happen that one particular average will one day prove to stand out with some special physical significance. However, that is not so today. The burden rests with those who calculate these statistics to prove their logic and value in terms of the governing dynamical equations, let alone the wider, less technical, contexts in which they are commonly encountered."
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 13, 2010 1:28:26 GMT
Well you obviously do not know what YOU are talking about.I think I have a reasonable knowledge of Statistics. As a little primer on Climatological Averages and their problems I suggest that you read (I know that you won't but it would be good) :
"Does a Global Temperature Exist?"
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdfRead it. The skew in data is the huge variation in OATs that are being used as inputs into the unspecified 'averaging' . The errors and assumptions are to do with choice of averaging methods, choice of inputs into the methods etc etc.Your explanation is starting to get a bit vague again. Give me an example of skewed data and how it might arise in a dataset. And does this apply to all datasets? Mapping algorithms are a continual source of error in assessment of 'area' and 'distance' and as we have all seen fundamental erros being made by 'experts' (even as basic as mixing metric and imperial units when calculating trajectories) these supposedly simplistic areas bear being examined.Whatever. ESPECIALLY as we are now in the rather paradoxical state of unexpected snow fall and cold weather in many areas of the NH that 'never' get snow simultaneous with being told that this is the warmest average global temperature period on record. Ok I get it now - because its cold where you are it must be cold throughout the NH Lower Trop. Also which places never get snow and have had it recently? How many? How widespread is this phenomenon? When such mismatches occur scientists go back and check assumptions and methods and whether the process being used to generate metrics is actually appropriate or useful. There aren't any mismatches. The anomaly maps (surface and LT) show which regions of the world have been warm and which have been cold. There is no inconsistency with what the maps show and what we've been experiencing in our tiny areas of the world. There aren't any mismatches. The anomaly maps (surface and LT) show which regions of the world have been warm and which have been cold. There is no inconsistency with what the maps show and what we've been experiencing in our tiny areas of the world. glc is trying to convince us the parrot is not dead again. Building Climate Datasets for Testing Claims of Human Impacts from Climate*--------------------------------------------------- You don't need to tell me about ENSO, Magellan. I made the point that ENSO (La Nina) was the reason for the 2008 'cooling' when everyone else on this blog was waffling on about the solar minimum nonsense (Have you deleted your posts where you were predicting plummeting temperatures at the end of 2008?) Parsing it further, which is always a necessity with your posts: I made the point that ENSO (La Nina) was the reason for the 2008 'cooling' La Nina caused 2008 'cooling'? Oh well, so you're still in the dark. ------------------------------------------------------ everyone else on this blog was waffling on about the solar minimum nonsense (Have you deleted your posts where you were predicting plummeting temperatures at the end of 2008?) Everyone? That's a lot of people. Ah, note the specificity in that statement. Who predicted plummeting temperatures at the end of 2008 resulting from the solar minimum? Find one post where I predicted anything based on the solar minimum. I don't know enough about it to draw conclusions about when such influences are manifested in earth's weather/climate. However to say the sun has no affect on weather/climate is hubris and an unwillingness to look at the evidence. Even Roy Spencer has taken notice of the GCR connection to cloud cover. Sometime in late summer 2008 I thought temps would begin to drop starting in Oct as I knew that UAH TLT very rarely goes in any one direction more than 3 months in a row, but was off a month or so because it wasn't clear which way it was moving for a few months. Then things changed with the sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) event that occurred in December/January and I said based on my research (with provided links) a large enough SSW could very well have a profound effect on surface temperatures in the NH, even globally. With every spike, there is a fall. You said it was a bunch of hooey and only a "local event". Oh, you remember that discussion now, or should I go dredge it up? This is what happened globally through June of 2009, the year without a summer in much of the NH. No bugger off and learn what La Nina really does. BTW, did I already mention Met O has thrown in towel for seasonal forecasts because of their dismal record of failure? Wasn't their super multi-million $$$ (i.e. taxpayer funded) GCM they rolled out in 2007 supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread?
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 13, 2010 3:08:56 GMT
As P.T. Barnum famously commented, "There's one born every minute." Here's all this fuss about historic temperatures - and the warmers have so distorted the databases that all the pretty graphs are the statistical equivalent of a moose turd sandwich.
We may never determine what the actual temperatures were, that hot summer of 1936. Or that remarkably cool series of summers, as commodity price records demonstrate, during the Dalton minimum.
Hopefully, we will "only get a Dalton." But for several reasons - periodicity included - I expect a Maunder.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 13, 2010 9:48:28 GMT
Hey, I'm glad I stirred up the pot a little but please excuse me if I only skim through the stuff. I only get interested in information that follows my personal line of enquiry these days ... don't take it personally but this thread was just 'poking a stick in the morasse' for me.
Conclusions I've made:
1) The Sun is the primary driver. Everything else follows. 2) There may be a 'blanket effect' but there is no 'greenhouse effect' in that the radiative 'black body' stuff is largely bunk. There is no empirical data and if you catch a atmospheric physicist on a good day they will admit there is no way to show 'empirically' the radiative effect of a trace gas which is 0.025 to 0.045 % of the atmosphere and then compare what it would do at 0.1 % ... or 1000 ppm ... which by most accounts is what even aerobic life forms are tuned to on this planet.
Every once in a while I try to goad a warmist with the CO2 model derived properties but even that is getting old now.
One thing I've noticed is Knutson, the modeller with the biggest public profile, is couching his bets if you look at his present revenue stream for pumping out GIGO with his algorithms.
My favorite 'property' of CO2 mostly used by skeptics who simply give a bit of ground on this subject is the logarithmic 'black body' response of it in the atmosphere. In short if we remove CO2 from the atmosphere its effect goes to infinity! Wow, I need that kind of influence leverage!
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 13, 2010 9:57:57 GMT
Oh, I guess I should mention. My main interest is the dribble of data on the interaction of the Sun's magnetosphere and the Earth's magnetosphere. For instance there were observations and a couple of papers pointing to observed heating in the upper atmosphere from this interaction.
Second is the phenomena of our entire solar system as it moves through the Milky Way as discussed in some later papers in the AGU link I posted previously.
Politically I am really focused on how Hathaway will over time acknowledge fellow NASA scientist Hung's work on the barycenter and the solar cycle and then NASA itself admit the Sun might have something to do with climate modulation ... even if its just indirect like the magnetosphere/cosmic ray/cloud formation thing.
Hathaway just started talking Solar Grand Minimum!
Happy Thrashing!
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 13, 2010 10:11:43 GMT
" stranger ..... Hopefully, we will "only get a Dalton." But for several reasons - periodicity included - I expect a Maunder."
My climate model of stolen solar system barycentric phenomena says ...
1) This Solar Grand Minima will be a Dalton Type. 2) We will get 2 more, possibly a Maunder type after that (172*2 ys) 3) The next one after will be a barycenter 'phase change' maximum (MWP repeat). 4) Then a Wolf ... Sporer repeat leading into the end of the Holocene interglacial and into the next glaciation of this late Pleistocene Ice Age (< millenium to happen).
... and I couch that with the possibility some factor pushes us to the pre Milankovitch (5 100k yr cycles) period where we did 50/50 glaciation and interglacial. I'm doubtfull however because the paleo record indicates we are on the low side ... but when you blow up the relatively stability of the climate (as per Lindzen) with T on the 'y axis' ... who knows at this point?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 13, 2010 16:19:56 GMT
Well you obviously do not know what YOU are talking about.I think I have a reasonable knowledge of Statistics. glc is trying to convince us the parrot is not dead again. Bingo! The parrot isn't talking or moving, has no detectable body heat yet GLC argues statistically not enough time has elapsed to rule out the parrot still being alive. The argument might even have some merit if he could demonstrate that the parrot wasn't a stuffed animal from the get go. But to do that you have to get rid of the MWP and demonstrate the non-existance of centennial/millennial natural forcings and the piltdown man-like attempt at doing that went down in flames so badly he won't even respond to posts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 14, 2010 1:35:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 14, 2010 13:33:52 GMT
The problem with this, which I am surprised you didn't spot, is that globally the satellite records and surface records don't show such a discrepancy: So logically if your image is correct, and I am open to the possibility that it's not, "satellite ocean" must show far more warming than "surface ocean". Indeed a quick google finds some graphs that show such an effect: bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/part-3-of-comparison-of-gistemp-and-uah.htmlSo does this mean satellites are "overstating" warming of the ocean? But what if land surface temperature doesn't overstate warming. What if the satellites are not measuring the same thing as the surface records? What if "land" in the troposphere makes little sense. What if land warms faster than the ocean, due to lower thermal inertia and the surface record shows this discrepancy the most because, well it's the near surface. The satellite records on the other hand are measuring air kilometers above the surface - which means the distinction between "land" and "ocean" is largely lost and so you get an middle-ground trend - areas of atmosphere over the land warm less, while areas over the ocean warm more.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 14, 2010 20:25:04 GMT
'Steam, for everyone's sake, I hope we "only get a Dalton." And we wise up enough to get at least seed stock off this planet before we get a Maunder or worse. But we HAVE had Maunders before. And it's time - in a world that operates on its schedule and not ours.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by glc on Mar 15, 2010 12:03:40 GMT
'Steam, for everyone's sake, I hope we "only get a Dalton." And we wise up enough to get at least seed stock off this planet before we get a Maunder or worse. But we HAVE had Maunders before. And it's time - in a world that operates on its schedule and not ours.
Stranger
As far as the sun is concerned, we have effectively got 23 data points of which 5 are considered reliable. Recently, many of the accepted reconstructions have been shown to be wrong. It's now clear that solar variability has not been a great as once thought. The lack of sunspots may well be related to the Livingston & Penn theory which suggests there will be a reduction of VISIBLE sunspots in the coming years. This, though, has nothing to do with reduced solar output but is caused by a change in the difference in contrast between the sunspot and the surrounding region, i.e. the sunspots will exist but they will be less visible.
The cool temperatures during the Maunder Minimum kicked in well before the MM started. The same is true of the Dalton Minimum. Close analysis suggests the solar climate link is flaky to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Mar 15, 2010 14:24:56 GMT
..... Close analysis suggests the solar climate link is flaky to say the least. Still better than CO2 link. Ice ages, roman warmth, LIA is all without a CO2 link.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Mar 16, 2010 3:21:48 GMT
Uh, why ruin a good party......... Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by itsonlysteam on Mar 16, 2010 6:21:52 GMT
sentient ... I agree. Plugged in more detail into my climate model and noticed the only reason we are noticing the Jose cycle is we are not in the interglacial anymore in terms of the last five 'Milankovitch Cycles'. We have dropped off the ledge and for some reason are hanging on but for a longer period of time than in the Eemian. During the Holocene Climate Optimum ... ending with the Minoan Warm Period, the modulation is at a step higher and although the graph posted looks suspicious I am not sure at that level you could tie it to historical events. Anyway we are either on borrowed time before the next glaciation, or we have jumped into a different equilibrium and are able to maintain these low temperatures without a glaciation. It's too short a period for solar brightening to have an effect by itself so I am placing my bet on pre-industrial land use. Maybe all those environmentally friendly farming methods in grazing and cultivation kept the ice sheets away I found a passing reference to that and I'd put my money on it. So much for the Luddite Theory of pre-industrial man not influencing the environment Where I live, the boreal forest has been expanding for 200 years because nobody sets it on fire anymore to get better grazing for the Bison herds. Now that we have zero tillage, lower impact range management and all these wonderful new practices ... hopefully we can count on the soot from China's Industrialization to hold the ice sheets back.
|
|