|
Post by glc on Feb 18, 2009 23:22:31 GMT
When you say
"running less warm"
is that the same as saying
"running colder"
Just checking before the thought police arrive.
Yes if you like. Though it's worth noting that satellite and surface anomalies are both warmer than normal , so it seems more correct to say the surface anomalies are "less warm" relatively.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 18, 2009 23:29:31 GMT
When you say
"running less warm"
is that the same as saying
"running colder"
Just checking before the thought police arrive. Yes if you like. Though it's worth noting that satellite and surface anomalies are both warmer than normal , so it seems more correct to say the surface anomalies are "less warm" relatively. Its nice to have testable statements - so "warmer than normal" is defined as?
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Feb 19, 2009 1:58:57 GMT
The early Hadley January 2009 number is out, at +0.370, which is 0.1 below my projection. Let's just say that satellite numbers correlate better with satellite numbers than with surface numbers
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 19, 2009 8:31:25 GMT
Its nice to have testable statements - so "warmer than normal" is defined as?
The "normal" here refers to the mean temperature of the base period for each of the temperature data sets, i.e.
RSS & UAH 1979-1997 ; Jan +0.32 & +0.31 respectively Hadley 1961-1990 ; Jan +0.37 GISS 1951-1980 ; Jan +0.52
The early Hadley January 2009 number is out, at +0.370, which is 0.1 below my projection. Let's just say that satellite numbers correlate better with satellite numbers than with surface numbers
Indeed. And, as I said in earlier post, this shows that the surface thermometers and satellite MSUs are measuring different things. Many have suggested that the differences between the two are due to UHI - or even fraud, but the 'convergence' in the data during Jan suggests there is no evidence for this.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2009 17:43:51 GMT
Its nice to have testable statements - so "warmer than normal" is defined as? The "normal" here refers to the mean temperature of the base period for each of the temperature data sets, i.e. RSS & UAH 1979-1997 ; Jan +0.32 & +0.31 respectively Hadley 1961-1990 ; Jan +0.37 GISS 1951-1980 ; Jan +0.52 Interesting - I would have thought that the end dates would have been brought up to 2008 at least. It may even help the AGW cause.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 19, 2009 23:56:30 GMT
Interesting - I would have thought that the end dates would have been brought up to 2008 at least. It may even help the AGW cause.
Why - it makes no difference to the trends.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 20, 2009 1:49:35 GMT
Its nice to have testable statements - so "warmer than normal" is defined as? The "normal" here refers to the mean temperature of the base period for each of the temperature data sets, i.e. RSS & UAH 1979-1997 ; Jan +0.32 & +0.31 respectively Hadley 1961-1990 ; Jan +0.37 GISS 1951-1980 ; Jan +0.52 The early Hadley January 2009 number is out, at +0.370, which is 0.1 below my projection. Let's just say that satellite numbers correlate better with satellite numbers than with surface numbers Indeed. And, as I said in earlier post, this shows that the surface thermometers and satellite MSUs are measuring different things. Many have suggested that the differences between the two are due to UHI - or even fraud, but the 'convergence' in the data during Jan suggests there is no evidence for this. but the 'convergence' in the data during Jan suggests there is no evidence for this You're kidding, right? Did GISS and Hadley have an epiphany or something? Even a blind squirrel will find a nut eventually. So now we can count on surface station data from here on out. differences between the two are due to UHI - or even fraud UHI, placement of thermometers and plain old sloppy science mainly. A bit of confirmation bias doesn't hurt either. But hey, if you think extrapolating temperature 1250 km is a sound scientific method, keep drinking the kool aid if it gives a warm fuzzy feeling.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 20, 2009 2:22:17 GMT
Interesting - I would have thought that the end dates would have been brought up to 2008 at least. It may even help the AGW cause.Why - it makes no difference to the trends. Because 'normal' means just that. If you keep your comparator locked as a short period in the past you start to stretch the definition of normal. Why not have 'normal' set in the recent ice age? After all Earth spends thousands of years longer in ice ages than in the shorter warm periods.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 20, 2009 10:01:18 GMT
Because 'normal' means just that. If you keep your comparator locked as a short period in the past you start to stretch the definition of normal.
We need to refer to a period during which the major natural forcings were broadly constant.
Why not have 'normal' set in the recent ice age? After all Earth spends thousands of years longer in ice ages than in the shorter warm periods.
Two problems. 1. We have no temperature observations from the ice ages. 2. Ice age conditions were, probably due to a huge reduction in insolation, different to those of to-day. If we are looking to explain temperature fluctuations over the past ~100 years ice age temperatures are, for the most part, irrelevant.
A final point: If you think I'm going to type out the "mean temperature for the period 1979-1997" every time I want to refer to a UAH anomaly - you've got another think coming!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 20, 2009 11:55:58 GMT
Because 'normal' means just that. If you keep your comparator locked as a short period in the past you start to stretch the definition of normal. We need to refer to a period during which the major natural forcings were broadly constant. Why not have 'normal' set in the recent ice age? After all Earth spends thousands of years longer in ice ages than in the shorter warm periods.Two problems. 1. We have no temperature observations from the ice ages. Hadcrut (observed ground temperatures) shows 1901 to 1919 almost .6 degreeC below the "normal" you selected. Why not select that as normal? 2. Ice age conditions were, probably due to a huge reduction in insolation, different to those of to-day. You mean there was a lot more ice? If we are looking to explain temperature fluctuations over the past ~100 years ice age temperatures are, for the most part, irrelevant. Irrelevant? Why. . . .because there was more ice?
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 20, 2009 12:00:52 GMT
Just checking before the thought police arrive. Yes if you like. Though it's worth noting that satellite and surface anomalies are both warmer than normal , so it seems more correct to say the surface anomalies are "less warm" relatively. Hope you recall that as the conversation gradually shifts to ocean pH changes.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 20, 2009 17:00:47 GMT
Hadcrut (observed ground temperatures) shows 1901 to 1919 almost .6 degreeC below the "normal" you selected. Why not select that as normal?
This a pointless discussion because
1. The period used to define "normal" doesn't matter. My original point is still valid. 2. Surface temperature observations on a global scale only go back to ~1880 so you can't use any period before that. 3. Satellite observations only go back 30 years so you can't use any period before that. 4. It doesn't matter what base period is used as it has no effect whatsoever on the trends.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 20, 2009 17:34:23 GMT
Hadcrut (observed ground temperatures) shows 1901 to 1919 almost .6 degreeC below the "normal" you selected. Why not select that as normal?This a pointless discussion because 1. The period used to define "normal" doesn't matter. My original point is still valid. 2. Surface temperature observations on a global scale only go back to ~1880 so you can't use any period before that. 3. Satellite observations only go back 30 years so you can't use any period before that. 4. It doesn't matter what base period is used as it has no effect whatsoever on the trends. I'm not the only one noticing there is a conflict between satellite and surface station temps for the last 30 years, with no warming from 1979-1997 according to satellite data. Note the last graph which I didn't make. Satellite Data Show that there Was No Global Warming Before 1997 icecap.us/images/uploads/ThereWasNoGlobalWarmingBefore1997(February15th2009).pdfWhat exactly are you trying to argue? It seems convoluted with no specificity. 4. It doesn't matter what base period is used as it has no effect whatsoever on the trends. Then why don't the trends match between satellite and near surface? You say they are measuring different things. I agree; satellites are measuring true values of temperature, and surface stations are measuring contaminated values. The trends are reversed in sign for AGW no matter which way it is sliced, and further demonstrates the folly of using linear regression for non-linear data.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 20, 2009 22:35:48 GMT
I'm not the only one noticing there is a conflict between satellite and surface station temps for the last 30 years, with no warming from 1979-1997 according to satellite data.
When you say "no warming" what exactly do you mean?
Note the last graph which I didn't make.
I can't access the link.
Satellite Data Show that there Was No Global Warming Before 1997
Again what do you mean by "No warming" Then why don't the trends match between satellite and near surface?
Which satellite trend? RSS or UAH?
You say they are measuring different things. I agree; satellites are measuring true values of temperature, and surface stations are measuring contaminated values.
On the Sea Ice 2009 thread I've shown that UH makes very little difference to the overall trend. There's no UH over 70% of the earth's surface, i.e. the oceans. Also for UH to have an effect on trend it must not only exist - it must increase
The trends are reversed in sign for AGW no matter which way it is sliced
No idea what this means. Use UAH if you like - it's still going up and the recent January anomaly isn't much lower than the Hadley anomaly. Be careful what you pin your colours on.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 20, 2009 23:47:21 GMT
Does any one know the pedigree of Arno Arrak???
|
|