|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:44:15 GMT
hadsst2 is out at 0.355C
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 16, 2009 20:05:27 GMT
socold. Where did you see this? I thought I knew all the URLs. TIA.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 23:01:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 16, 2009 23:46:33 GMT
No conspiracy theory from me, either.
The fact is that the United States Historical Climatology Network is horrific and the Global Historical Climatology Network is worse.
Between former Soviet republics, Third World countries, and bad temperature station siting even within stable industrialized nations, GHCN is a catastrophe.
Please feel free to provide any contrary evidence you may have found. Do you mean apart from the fact there is hardly any difference between the surface and satellite trends over the past 20 years. Do you mean apart from the fact there is hardly any difference between the surface and satellite trends over the past 20 years.The irony...... Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere. Why isn't the tropical troposphere warming as it should? Are you making up your own version? BTW, NOAA, which doesn't "adjust" for UHI, has May down -.076. So that's a ~.166 discrepancy between GISS and NOAA; nooo problem. Next we'll be treated to HadCRU SWAG. The defense of surface station measurements would be funny if they weren't used for anything meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 17, 2009 1:07:07 GMT
GISS is in at +0.55.
If you're going to tell a lie, best tell a big one. Why do you believe this is a lie? and what makes you think it is a big one? The GISS anomaly is +0.34 above the 1979-1998 average for May. In February, the UAH anomaly was +0.35 above the 1979-1998 average for February, while GISS were less than 0.2 deg above. Were UAH lying? Over the next few months, satellite anomalies are likely to be relatively cooler than the surface anomalies. This has nothing to do with fraud by Hadley and GISS, but is more likely due to the fact that there appears to be a longer lag time in response to fluctuations in ocean temperatures, i.e. the troposphere is still 'seeing' the colder SST from earlier months. Since ~1990 there is only a few hundredths of a degree between the trends of the 4 main datasets. So when surface and satellites are in agreement, that means what? How about this: satellites are more reliable because they have a much broader coverage and can be calibrated to a known standard versus the surface station network which has never been calibrated and has been losing coverage over the last 30 years. Oh, and not to forget www.surfacestations.org The rule, not the exception:
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Jun 17, 2009 1:10:27 GMT
Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.
Why isn't the tropical troposphere warming as it should? Are you making up your own version? Is this the same as the missing hot spot?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 17, 2009 2:16:27 GMT
Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.
Why isn't the tropical troposphere warming as it should? Are you making up your own version? Is this the same as the missing hot spot? The same.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 17, 2009 4:13:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tallbloke on Jun 17, 2009 8:53:05 GMT
"NOAA, which doesn't "adjust" for UHI, has May down -.076. So that's a ~.166 discrepancy between GISS and NOAA"
Lol.
Another day, another deviation.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 17, 2009 10:37:11 GMT
Why isn't the tropical troposphere warming as it should? Are you making up your own version?Magellan keeps plugging this one thinking this is a big show stopper for AGW. It isn’t. The ‘hot spot’ theory covers all sources of warming not just AGW. Does its non-appearance mean that no warming ever occurs. I’ll return to this when I’ve got a bit more time. BTW, NOAA, which doesn't "adjust" for UHI, has May down -.076. So that's a ~.166 discrepancy between GISS and NOAA; nooo problem. Next we'll be treated to HadCRU SWAG.I don’t consider that a discrepancy. As has been discussed here on numerous occasions, there are lots of reasons for datasets to disagree over a month or even more. It is a somewhat bizarre idea that you consider a discrepancy to be the absolute difference between anomalies in successive months and it suggests you are not too sure what an anomaly is. However, if you insist on this definition, there are quite a number of interesting “discrepancies” between the satellite records. There are at least 6 occasions where the relative change in successive months has been greater than 0.166. The largest ’discrepancy’ of 0.27 occurred in December 1980. The Nov/Dec 1980 anomalies were as follows Nov 1980: RSS -0.17; UAH +0.11; UAH-RSS 0.28 Dec 1980: RSS -0.08; UAH -0.07; UAH-RSS 0.01 i.e. RSS rose by +0.09 deg while UAH dropped by -0.18 deg. More recently, there was a “discrepancy” of 0.17 in Mar/Apr 1999 and even this year in 2009, there were “discrepancies” of 0.13 in both Jan/Feb AND Mar/Apr. I’m not sure why I wasted my time with this. How about this: satellites are more reliable because they have a much broader coverage and can be calibrated to a known standard versus the surface station network which has never been calibrated and has been losing coverage over the last 30 years. Oh, and not to forget h www.surfacestations.org I’ll go into this more when I’ve got time. I would have thought the fact that the surface closely tracks the satellite records is a good enough reason to think they provide a reasonable estimate of the warming. 70% of the surface is covered by oceans which automatically reduces any poor siting or UH effects by around a third. As far as the surface station project is concerned. What is it going to achieve? The US temperature trend since 1979 is virtually identical for UAH (0.26 deg per decade) and GISS (0.25 deg per decade). Any reduction is the GISS trend means the surface is warming at a lower rate than the troposphere – EXACTLY what AGW predicts. You (and others) make the mistake of thinking that analysis of temperature trends means that accurate measurements of the absolute temperatures are essential. They aren’t. We simply need to know the change. For example, imagine a large lake. I can easily get a fairly accurate measurement of the change in the lake level compared to a given time period. Over time I can provide a figure for how much the lake level is rising/falling (the trend). However I don’t need to have a clue as to how deep the lake is. It makes no difference whether the lake is 20 ft deep or 200 ft deep. It's the same with temperature.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Jun 17, 2009 11:33:01 GMT
The usually quoted HAD/CRU figure for May seems to be 0.400 C. I calculate that if the forecast of 0.44 C for the whole year is to be achieved, the next 7 months must average 0.484 C, well above what has happened for the first 5 months. If the UK forecast is going to rely on Smith et al for their forecast for 2010, it looks like they may end up in cloud cuckoo land.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jun 17, 2009 14:08:34 GMT
glc "You (and others) make the mistake of thinking that analysis of temperature trends means that accurate measurements of the absolute temperatures are essential. They aren’t. We simply need to know the change. For example, imagine a large lake. I can easily get a fairly accurate measurement of the change in the lake level compared to a given time period. Over time I can provide a figure for how much the lake level is rising/falling (the trend). However I don’t need to have a clue as to how deep the lake is. It makes no difference whether the lake is 20 ft deep or 200 ft deep. It's the same with temperature."
So to make another analogy I measure the depth of the atmosphere. However I don't need to know the depth only the relative depth. It will then tell me the SST temperature. They are all kind of the same and I really do not have to be accurate I know what is happening.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 17, 2009 21:25:54 GMT
The May difference between GISS and UAH (once baselines are equalized) is a whopping .30C, which is actually greater than the March 2008 difference last year (.27C). In fact, I believe it might be the greatest one-month divergence on record.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jun 17, 2009 22:26:29 GMT
The May difference between GISS and UAH (once baselines are equalized) is a whopping .30C, which is actually greater than the March 2008 difference last year (.27C). In fact, I believe it might be the greatest one-month divergence on record.
Well, it does beat the UAH-RSS difference of 0.28 deg in November 1980. Mind UAH and RSS were supposed to be measuring the same thing, so any discrepancy due to lags becuse of ENSO fluctuations wouldn't apply.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 18, 2009 1:33:31 GMT
Why isn't the tropical troposphere warming as it should? Are you making up your own version?Magellan keeps plugging this one thinking this is a big show stopper for AGW. It isn’t. The ‘hot spot’ theory covers all sources of warming not just AGW. Does its non-appearance mean that no warming ever occurs. I’ll return to this when I’ve got a bit more time. BTW, NOAA, which doesn't "adjust" for UHI, has May down -.076. So that's a ~.166 discrepancy between GISS and NOAA; nooo problem. Next we'll be treated to HadCRU SWAG.I don’t consider that a discrepancy. As has been discussed here on numerous occasions, there are lots of reasons for datasets to disagree over a month or even more. It is a somewhat bizarre idea that you consider a discrepancy to be the absolute difference between anomalies in successive months and it suggests you are not too sure what an anomaly is. However, if you insist on this definition, there are quite a number of interesting “discrepancies” between the satellite records. There are at least 6 occasions where the relative change in successive months has been greater than 0.166. The largest ’discrepancy’ of 0.27 occurred in December 1980. The Nov/Dec 1980 anomalies were as follows Nov 1980: RSS -0.17; UAH +0.11; UAH-RSS 0.28 Dec 1980: RSS -0.08; UAH -0.07; UAH-RSS 0.01 i.e. RSS rose by +0.09 deg while UAH dropped by -0.18 deg. More recently, there was a “discrepancy” of 0.17 in Mar/Apr 1999 and even this year in 2009, there were “discrepancies” of 0.13 in both Jan/Feb AND Mar/Apr. I’m not sure why I wasted my time with this. How about this: satellites are more reliable because they have a much broader coverage and can be calibrated to a known standard versus the surface station network which has never been calibrated and has been losing coverage over the last 30 years. Oh, and not to forget h www.surfacestations.org I’ll go into this more when I’ve got time. I would have thought the fact that the surface closely tracks the satellite records is a good enough reason to think they provide a reasonable estimate of the warming. 70% of the surface is covered by oceans which automatically reduces any poor siting or UH effects by around a third. As far as the surface station project is concerned. What is it going to achieve? The US temperature trend since 1979 is virtually identical for UAH (0.26 deg per decade) and GISS (0.25 deg per decade). Any reduction is the GISS trend means the surface is warming at a lower rate than the troposphere – EXACTLY what AGW predicts. You (and others) make the mistake of thinking that analysis of temperature trends means that accurate measurements of the absolute temperatures are essential. They aren’t. We simply need to know the change. For example, imagine a large lake. I can easily get a fairly accurate measurement of the change in the lake level compared to a given time period. Over time I can provide a figure for how much the lake level is rising/falling (the trend). However I don’t need to have a clue as to how deep the lake is. It makes no difference whether the lake is 20 ft deep or 200 ft deep. It's the same with temperature. Magellan keeps plugging this one thinking this is a big show stopper for AGW. It isn’t. The ‘hot spot’ theory covers all sources of warming not just AGW. Does its non-appearance mean that no warming ever occurs. I’ll return to this when I’ve got a bit more time. You've had what, 8 months now and still can't provide the source for this new and improved AGW hypothesis? Even the latest Obama propaganda report, to which he put science back in it's proper place, acknowledges the "hot spot", but the Wamologists say they found the right balloon data to verify the models. It is of course garbage in, gospel out. I don’t consider that a discrepancy. As has been discussed here on numerous occasions, there are lots of reasons for datasets to disagree over a month or even more. It is a somewhat bizarre idea that you consider a discrepancy to be the absolute difference between anomalies in successive months and it suggests you are not too sure what an anomaly is. However, if you insist on this definition, there are quite a number of interesting “discrepancies” between the satellite records. There are at least 6 occasions where the relative change in successive months has been greater than 0.166. The largest ’discrepancy’ of 0.27 occurred in December 1980. The Nov/Dec 1980 anomalies were as follows 1) RSS uses climate models to calibrate. You said I made it up, remember? 2) UAH uses empirical methods. 3) An independent study by Hermann et al showed UAH is the more accurate of the two. 4) UAH has a larger spatial coverage than RSS and uses a different satellite (AQUA) which no longer suffers from orbital decay issues. As far as the surface station project is concerned. What is it going to achieve? The US temperature trend since 1979 is virtually identical for UAH (0.26 deg per decade) and GISS (0.25 deg per decade). Any reduction is the GISS trend means the surface is warming at a lower rate than the troposphere – EXACTLY what AGW predicts. So now the U.S. is representative of the globe? I thought it was too small to compare. So be it, that's good because the current warming is hardly distinguishable from the 1930's. The warming rate should be >1.6x for the troposphere vs the surface despite your yelling it matches EXACTLY what AGW predicts. Either way, you've got a losing proposition with the U.S. In the paragraph above you said tropospheric warming is from all sources and it doesn't matter. Make up your mind. Also, you fail to understand satellites will see the same effects from UHI and land use change as the surface, but they cannot determine if a thermometer is placed next to a parking lot, air conditioner or on top of a roof. Nor do they care if the siting meets CRN standards. You (and others) make the mistake of thinking that analysis of temperature trends means that accurate measurements of the absolute temperatures are essential. They aren’t. We simply need to know the change. For example, imagine a large lake. I can easily get a fairly accurate measurement of the change in the lake level compared to a given time period. Over time I can provide a figure for how much the lake level is rising/falling (the trend). However I don’t need to have a clue as to how deep the lake is. It makes no difference whether the lake is 20 ft deep or 200 ft deep. It's the same with temperature. I've been taking and evaluating measurements for nearly 3 decades, so you can't con the con man. Whether it be an anomaly or absolute, a GR&R is necessary to determine if the measuring equipment is up to the task. A thermometer with a +/- 2 deg repeatability will affect the result. So will thermistor drift, and so will urban growth and other issues. Obviously you've been attending Hansen online climate courses. GIStemp gets their data from NOAA, then massages it by some undecipherable mess that even the more experienced FORTRAN dinosaur programmers cannot untangle. It isn't difficult to figure out that if GIStemp reports an anomaly the opposite sign of NOAA, something isn't right with one or the other, or both. I'd say the U.S. is pretty industrialized, wouldn't you agree? www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdfLocal land surface modification and variations in data quality affect temperature trends in surface-measured data. Such effects are considered extraneous for the purpose of measuring climate change, and providers of climate data must develop adjustments to filter them out. If done correctly, temperature trends in climate data should be uncorrelated with socioeconomic variables that determine these extraneous factors. This hypothesis can be tested, which is the main aim of this paper. Using a new database for all available land-based grid cells around the world we test the null hypothesis that the spatial pattern of temperature trends in a widely used gridded climate data set is independent of socioeconomic determinants of surface processes and data inhomogeneities. The hypothesis is strongly rejected (P = 7.1 _ 10_14), indicating that extraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. The patterns of contamination are detectable in both rich and poor countries and are relatively stronger in countries where real income is growing. We apply a battery of model specification tests to rule out spurious correlations and endogeneity bias. We conclude that the data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half. P.S. Now that El Nino is here, we can expect the Big Warm to bust the charts in 2009, and a repeat in 2010, right?
|
|