|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 17:16:37 GMT
So table 1a is completely useless and uninteresting huh?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 20, 2010 17:36:54 GMT
So table 1a is completely useless and uninteresting huh?[/quote It was interesting until I read what the parimiters were. Upon further reading the paper and understanding the adjustments and then the flat out guesses..... Let's say, my interest in the paper as a source of information became much less. The paper is more random thoughts and guesses than evidence of anything.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 18:13:41 GMT
It's a summary of the values of various energy flows in the climate system. Trenberth looks at values produced by a variety of sources and discusses them. Kind of important summation of the state of knowledge on the matter. I don't see why it has to be "evidence of anything" to be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 20, 2010 19:36:19 GMT
It's a summary of the values of various energy flows in the climate system. Trenberth looks at values produced by a variety of sources and discusses them. Kind of important summation of the state of knowledge on the matter. I don't see why it has to be "evidence of anything" to be interesting. He was honest in the paper in showing that the numbers he was using were guesses or approximations. You are correct in that the state of knowledge on the matter is about nill as far as being able to be used for anything of substance. That is what I got out of the paper. You could put about any number that you felt in the calculations to produce what you want to produce. Approximations and guesses.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2010 19:37:00 GMT
It's not so much being able to replicate it as understanding how it was calculated, ie just a description. That description might not permit replication but it would explain how the thing being measured, eg "atmospheric window" was being defined for example. "Atmospheric window" is not a word used on either diagram Socold thus the differing meanings of that word do not apply. The meaning of the word is described by the figure and both figures describe it in the same way and we know by that fact what it is and what kind of atmospheric window it is. As far as believing in science without data or ability to replicate, whether you want to do the replication yourself or rely upon the ability of independent review, is pretty risky business. It is for example illegal to provide sell stock on a stock exchange without independent examination of your operating results. Those rules were developed over time to greatly reduce the number of scams. The science profession recognizes the need for that and thus many make it a policy though it is very poorly enforced. As long as there are suckers out there that don't demand that there will be people who take advantage of it and you. These are lessons your mother should have taught you. Trenberth notes that the 40wm-2 atmospheric window in his diagram is an ad hoc estimation based on the mid range of the clear sky and cloudy sky case - ad hoc because he just weights it based on the proportion of cloudy vs clear sky covering the Earth. The 2009 paper just uses the value from the 97 paper (no update). The other diagram we don't know what it means by atmospheric window. This is NOT GOOD!! The likely explanation short of coming up with an external source that anybody would likely have as much access to as NASA; is it is an internally generated chart. Since NASA is primarily an observing agency when it comes to climate that would suggest it is based upon satellite data as opposed to most the data generated by academia that tends to build more on referenced material that often goes back decades. We see NASA produce some the latter multi-generational reference work via the Hansen group but that isn't the primary mission of NASA which is to be a data source. We see that conflict in the mission with the way Hansen sticks with a multi-national, non-standardized, unequally distributed surface data set as opposed to the satellite observations. Folks have pointed out how recent surface temperature sets do not diverge much, but here we are seeing something that diverges widely and there is no discussion of it. Almost smacks of Phil Jones Hiding the Decline. NASAs chart does not show an imbalance. If the actual imbalance were being observed rather than calculated it would have to a result of observing net incoming versus the net outgoing as an imbalance is nothing more than the difference between those two observations. It cannot be observed directly itself. Since these two graphs do not agree on those numbers and they are not even close would suggest we are not even close in observing and confirming any atmospheric imbalance much less the source of it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 20, 2010 19:37:16 GMT
When you referred to this as ballpark you weren't kidding. The difference between a home run and a caught out is inches. Yet, the effect on the game is immeasureable. Do you see my point?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jun 20, 2010 19:51:18 GMT
We see NASA produce some the latter multi-generational reference work via the Hansen group but that isn't the primary mission of NASA which is to be a data source. NASA is a government agency. The government wants cap and trade legislation. NASA wants funding. It is no surprise that NASA would be providing the necessary "science" to push AGW and thus cap and trade.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2010 19:52:37 GMT
This paper is long on estimates and short on actual facts. After reading the paper, I can see that it was a waste of time as nothing was learned except that adjustments, estimates etc were used to try and provide an outcome that matched what Trenbeth etal were trying to project. Then of course the diagram is then inserted into a textbook as science. Its a nice visual depiction of a theory and error bars would put the theory into context. So what he means by not useful is what Phil Jones meant by a "Trick" to not confuse the desired conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 20:03:34 GMT
He was honest in the paper in showing that the numbers he was using were guesses or approximations. You are correct in that the state of knowledge on the matter is about nill as far as being able to be used for anything of substance. Not at all, take the different sources for incoming solar energy for example: KT97 341.8 ERBE FT08 341.3 ISCCP-FD 341.8 NRA 341.9 ERA-40 342.5 JRA 339.1 That tells me incoming solar radiation is about 340wm-2. That is just one example of useful knowledge provided in the paper.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 20, 2010 20:07:18 GMT
He was honest in the paper in showing that the numbers he was using were guesses or approximations. You are correct in that the state of knowledge on the matter is about nill as far as being able to be used for anything of substance. Not at all, take the different sources for incoming solar energy for example: KT97 341.8 ERBE FT08 341.3 ISCCP-FD 341.8 NRA 341.9 ERA-40 342.5 JRA 339.1 That tells me incoming solar radiation is about 340wm-2. That is just one example of useful knowledge provided in the paper. Did we not already know that number?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 20, 2010 20:08:56 GMT
No matter how you cut it, this paper doesn't provide any new knowledge in my opinion. It does provide thought, so I will have to retract my statement that it is useless.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 20, 2010 20:16:51 GMT
Not at all, take the different sources for incoming solar energy for example:
KT97 341.8 ERBE FT08 341.3 ISCCP-FD 341.8 NRA 341.9 ERA-40 342.5 JRA 339.1
That tells me incoming solar radiation is about 340wm-2. That is just one example of useful knowledge provided in the paper. [/color][/quote] Useful for what purpose? Keep in mind the imbalance in a budget is nothing more or less than the difference between incoming and outgoing. Here we have a range of variation between 342.5 and 339.1. Since the sample is small error bars would probably extend that some and it is 3.4watts!!! The imbalance is only .9watts. The error on the incoming alone is about 4 times the imbalance and this is probably the best measured number on the entire graph. Obviously Trenberth cherrypicked the value he chose to get the outcome he desired. If on the other hand he had provided error bars then you would have something like an imbalance + or - 1.8watts, assuming the outgoing had no range of uncertainty. But that sends the wrong message from Trenberth's point of view thus he doctored it up.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 20:33:57 GMT
It's not so much being able to replicate it as understanding how it was calculated, ie just a description. That description might not permit replication but it would explain how the thing being measured, eg "atmospheric window" was being defined for example. "Atmospheric window" is not a word used on either diagram Socold thus the differing meanings of that word do not apply. It's in the Trenberth one, the other unsourced diagram has a label for energy from surface directly into space, which is what the atmospheric window is. The question is though how it is calculated in the unsourced diagram. The Trenberth paper shows that getting a value for it is a bit complicated and we don't know how the unsourced diagram did it. NASA use the Trenberth diagram and that wasn't internally generated. Perhaps the other diagram wasn't internally generated either. Trenberth's diagram is based on satellite data. At the very least the atmsospheric window component is. Acedemia also uses satellite data. The satellite data is released and acedemics use it. NASA also analyze the satellite data too. Trenberth uses satellites for example. Roy Spencer is an acedemic. What's wrong with having both? That is true, Trenberth takes the value from climate model results.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 20:39:52 GMT
Not at all, take the different sources for incoming solar energy for example: KT97 341.8 ERBE FT08 341.3 ISCCP-FD 341.8 NRA 341.9 ERA-40 342.5 JRA 339.1 That tells me incoming solar radiation is about 340wm-2. That is just one example of useful knowledge provided in the paper. Did we not already know that number? Perhaps, although isn't that the point of the diagram to convey the numbers? The atmospheric window for example is not something I knew offhand and the amount of back-radiation, etc. Those values are not pinpoint accurate but it is fairly useful to see all the energy flows in proportion to one another.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 20, 2010 20:43:24 GMT
Not at all, take the different sources for incoming solar energy for example:
KT97 341.8 ERBE FT08 341.3 ISCCP-FD 341.8 NRA 341.9 ERA-40 342.5 JRA 339.1
That tells me incoming solar radiation is about 340wm-2. That is just one example of useful knowledge provided in the paper. [/color][/quote] Useful for what purpose?[/QUOTE] No purpose I guess, just for the sake of knowing. I agree the uncertainty in the incoming and outgoing radiation is far too low to calculate the imbalance from them. I would have prefered error ranges too
|
|