|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 0:17:14 GMT
ocold. All sea surface temperature records shows warming over the past few months. So do all surface records. In reality land, we call that summer. They are global records No it's out there, you won't take a look anyway and I wouldn't waste a second collating anything for you, in fact I consider this post a slight waste of time but your gaffe at thinking global temperature peaks in northern hemisphere summer was too good to ignore. It's very likely it will be mild.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jul 17, 2009 4:20:05 GMT
I just realized something. Even assuming half the warming since the last warm period peak (smoothed temperatures) was masked by aerosol cooling...we STILL wouldn't get above a 2C anomaly by 2100.
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Jul 17, 2009 17:15:56 GMT
;DI was watching the weather channel last night and this really hyper guy with dark hair and thin just reported This June was the second hottest on record. He also had this map of the world with read dots all over it. The only cool areas were over the great lakes and parts of Canada. The rest of the world including the oceans are all hot. Man this global warming is really bad. We can believe them right?
Any one ells catch that report too.
Karl ;D
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Jul 17, 2009 18:30:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 17, 2009 19:51:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lamont on Jul 19, 2009 15:10:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lamont on Jul 19, 2009 15:17:45 GMT
Socold - take a look at the GISS temp recording station locations (hint, airports..). It's no wonder temps have risen - heat sinks next to the recording stations... NCDC did an analysis comparing the GISS temperature records against the 70 best sites discovered so far with surfacestations.org and the results are that it doesn't change the analysis at all: Anthony Watts has not yet done a statistical analysis of his own data. He prefers to cherry pick badly positioned stations with warming trends, good stations with cooling trends, and theorizations about airports, instead of statistically analyzing his data because statistical analysis is going to agree with GISS and in the meantime his followers are eating up all his misinformation and theatrics. Yes there are bad stations out there, but NCDC takes that into account in their analysis and Anthony Watts wasn't the first person to think about the global temperature record and urbanization next to the temperature sensors. NCDC response to the whole surfacestations issue: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 19, 2009 15:53:42 GMT
Socold: What am I missing here? I looked at the maps on the site you listed and it shows a large area that is above the mean for the past week of July. However, living in this area and knowing the weather for at least a 1,000 miles around me, the map is just flat out wrong. Am I missing something in the statistical analysis? I just don't know what is going on, but I do feel something really stinks here.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 19, 2009 16:13:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lamont on Jul 19, 2009 17:56:27 GMT
DeepClimate is well known for inventing non-standard statistical methods, much like free energy proponents come up with their "inventions". He gets laughed off every forum he promotes his junk. In this case deep climate is right on the money and tamino has done a much better analysis in the first two URLs (and consistent with your observations, the analysis by tamino is much more thorough than deepclimate's investigation). The tamino analysis in the second URL i posted finds that the magnitude is nonphysical and that the phase in the UAH data is the same in the NH and SH and is greater in the tropics, which makes it likely that it is non-physical. You also haven't raised an concrete issues with the statistical methods used. They're actually very straight-forwards, and not particularly naive. Apparently you didn't bother to actually read any of the links and just dismissed them. Again, while this shows up in differences between UAH and RSS, this problem also shows up in UAH data for 2003-2009, which means a cyclical trend for the past 7 years relative to the UAH 1979-1998 baseline. This is an internal, nonphysical problem in the UAH dataset starting in 2003. In a noisy dataset with a decadal pattern you can always cherry pick a segment of time where the trend is reversed. If you want to talk about poor statistical methods, lets start with this one. You appear have a two month trend where RSS is somewhat cool, but statistically within the usual pattern of differences betwen RSS and UAH, that hardly breaks a pattern in place since 2003. RSS also has the same spacial coverage, its the same underlying dataset. Both of them still cut off the poles though. That analysis was based on 70 stations that surfacestations.org has classified as good or best, so yes, that is based on an external "empirical" assessment of station quality. Yes, it is.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 19, 2009 18:04:49 GMT
The so-called "analysis" used to justify surface station network values which classifies rural stations is based on the Lights=0 designation by Hansen. Nowhere will you find from NCDC one single reference to an empirical investigation into whether these "rural" stations are actually rural per CRN standards. Watts should have put up or shut up by now. If I told you that I probably had some important information that would blow proposed legislation that I disagreed with out of the water, but I was going to wait a few months till I was absolutely sure, would you believe me? I see he moaned recently that he would have been "villified" if he'd done an analysis at 30% sample (well, yes he would have been villified by his blog minions I suspect). But he is now at over 80% wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/16/surfacestations-org-hits-the-1000-mark/Furthermore, Gavin Schmidt at realclimate has been on record a number of times stating that the US is oversampled by stations many, many times. Watts could quite easily have cited Schmidt when publicising results with a smaller subset. I suspect Watts is more concerned about losing his own sheeple.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 19, 2009 18:43:51 GMT
DeepClimate is well known for inventing non-standard statistical methods, much like free energy proponents come up with their "inventions". He gets laughed off every forum he promotes his junk. In this case deep climate is right on the money and tamino has done a much better analysis in the first two URLs (and consistent with your observations, the analysis by tamino is much more thorough than deepclimate's investigation). The tamino analysis in the second URL i posted finds that the magnitude is nonphysical and that the phase in the UAH data is the same in the NH and SH and is greater in the tropics, which makes it likely that it is non-physical. You also haven't raised an concrete issues with the statistical methods used. They're actually very straight-forwards, and not particularly naive. Apparently you didn't bother to actually read any of the links and just dismissed them. Again, while this shows up in differences between UAH and RSS, this problem also shows up in UAH data for 2003-2009, which means a cyclical trend for the past 7 years relative to the UAH 1979-1998 baseline. This is an internal, nonphysical problem in the UAH dataset starting in 2003. In a noisy dataset with a decadal pattern you can always cherry pick a segment of time where the trend is reversed. If you want to talk about poor statistical methods, lets start with this one. You appear have a two month trend where RSS is somewhat cool, but statistically within the usual pattern of differences betwen RSS and UAH, that hardly breaks a pattern in place since 2003. RSS also has the same spacial coverage, its the same underlying dataset. Both of them still cut off the poles though. That analysis was based on 70 stations that surfacestations.org has classified as good or best, so yes, that is based on an external "empirical" assessment of station quality. Yes, it is. In the "talking points" they use three references. I am not spending a lot of time arguing with you on this, but will allow Roger Pielke Sr. to set the record straight on this latest propaganda out of NOAA. This is blatantly untrue and the author of these talking points know that.
Please see: climatesci.org/2009/07/03/roger-a-pielke-sr-comments-on-the-ncdc-talking-point-response-to-the-report-%E2%80%9Cis-the-us-surface-temperature-record-reliable%E2%80%9Dby-anthony-watts/
|
|