eric
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by eric on Jul 31, 2009 3:11:38 GMT
glc,
I was only pointing out that I was surprised to see the June UK Hadcrut map after hearing lots of comments about a cool summer in the UK on this board.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 31, 2009 3:30:48 GMT
This is what I had hoped for, some testable allegations by the skeptics against the surface records which we can actually put to test. Side question to begin with: "Why on earth is not a decent map projection used?"Answer: That's a subjective opinion. I am sure faced with an equal area projection many people would say "what is this strange distorted world map? why can't they use a decent one instead?" For the person who answered, rather foolishly "So you can be sure those charts are produced by incompetent folk"" you've also just smeared Roy Spencer. I am sure I've seen UAH maps which are not equal area too. Probably for the same reason. "Woodstove: Hadcrut and GISS, with regard to the northeastern United States, are wrong."And they don't show enough warming in the South of France, sure. This is just an artifact of the GISTEMP and Hadcrut maps being smoothed (the presented map, not the data). This causes some areas to become cooler (south of france) and others warmer (north east US). The GISTEMP and Hadcrut maps with less smoothing show the north east US colder than the 1960-1990 mean: data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=06&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=06&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1961&base2=1990&radius=250&pol=reghadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/diagnostics/monthly/anomaly.pngjurinko: June in my country was definitely under 1960-1990 baseline, contrary to those charts made in fiery colors.You'll have to say what your country is before I can check this one. Sigurdur: The anomaly is flat out wrong for the midwest as well. Try -2.6 for June, rather than the paltry -1. And we won't even talk about May.....at 5.6 below the anomaly. OH well, pipe dreams at best again.They all show lower than -1 Lads: There's a big red dot around Lisbon, where according to the local Meteorologic Institute late Srping/early Summer have been the coldest in decadesSame source agrees with the big red dot around Lisbon: So to sum up, nice try guys but no cigar. Why am I not suprised? A variety of reasons, one of which is that it just isn't that simple. If the surface records were as obviously wrong as skeptics clearly like to think, it would be an unavoidable problem. Perhaps now we've learnt that skepticism is a two way steet at least. You may not realize it socold, but you proved nothing, other than errors can be replicated....... Nonetheless, it pays to see through the fog: www.climateaudit.org/?p=6346 That would be Phil Jones, the same Phil Jones mentioned here: scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2009/05/allegations-of-fraud-at-albany-wang.htmlAnd: www.climateaudit.org/?p=4901If you want to debate UHI and surface temperature record integrity, let's go for it
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 31, 2009 8:37:36 GMT
If you want to debate UHI and surface temperature record integrity, let's go for it
Why don't we debate the huge difference in monthly trends in the UAH satellite record. There is a difference of 0.12 deg per decade between the May and February trends over the the whole record and more than 0.25 deg per decade in the 2003-2008 period. This is clearly nonsense which Christy himself acknowledged in a recent post on WUWT. He wrote
"I think the magnitude of the annual cycle in the monthly trends is a legitimate problem to address. The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large (about 0.12 C/decade). "
RSS doesn't show this pattern of much lower anomalies for May/June so why does UAH? Remember this discrepancy covers the whole troposphere - so let's go for it.
|
|
shm6666
Level 2 Rank
The Sun :-)
Posts: 98
|
Post by shm6666 on Jul 31, 2009 11:08:36 GMT
This is for Sweden in June by SMHI Hadcrut3: Has the cold over Finland instead of Sweden. GISS is about right. NCDC to warm over the Swedish north. JMA about right. Does anybody have the maps from UAH MSU and RSS MSU? The big warming seems to be on the pools. Both in Antarctica and in the Arctic. What does the satellites say the temperatures was? /Sven
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 31, 2009 12:57:42 GMT
If you want to debate UHI and surface temperature record integrity, let's go for it Why don't we debate the huge difference in monthly trends in the UAH satellite record. There is a difference of 0.12 deg per decade between the May and February trends over the the whole record and more than 0.25 deg per decade in the 2003-2008 period. This is clearly nonsense which Christy himself acknowledged in a recent post on WUWT. He wrote "I think the magnitude of the annual cycle in the monthly trends is a legitimate problem to address. The range in the current v5.2 LT looks too large (about 0.12 C/decade). "RSS doesn't show this pattern of much lower anomalies for May/June so why does UAH? Remember this discrepancy covers the whole troposphere - so let's go for it. Christy said he would look into it. Nice that you once again cherry picked and left out the last statement he made: The important point in all of this is that the overall global trend of the entire time series ranges insignificantly from +0.123 to +0.125 C/decade even under the different merging methods used to date. This is because the removal of the annual cycle of differences from satellite to satellite does not add any bias to the time series, so the overall trend doesn’t change.Why is the surface trend higher than the LT? Will you now use the latest AGW propaganda to defend it by denying (hey, I could learn to like that word) climate models, and hence the CO2 AGW hypothesis, clearly show the "hot spot" that doesn't exist in reality? Have you considered UAH has a larger geographical coverage than all the other temperature products including RSS? I don't recall you complaining when UAH went up by .05 in February while RSS dropped .048. Aside from that, contrast Christy's response to Phil Jones at Hadley who refuses to even release his data or methods, and that multiple FOI requests are ignored. Now with pressure being applied, CRU has the paper shredder in Turbo mode. This is the same Phil Jones who stated: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 31, 2009 13:55:04 GMT
Christy said he would look into it. Nice that you once again cherry picked and left out the last statement he made:
It's not me that's cherrypicking. You're the one that's decided that minor inconsistencies over tiny regions of the earth mean that the surface temperature record is riddled with UH problems.
Why is the surface trend higher than the LT?
It isn't - not since 1992 anyway. Hadley, GISS and RSS are all ~0.16 deg per decade since the start of the satellite era. UAH is the odd one out probably because it's temperature measurements in the early satellite period are too low. This would provide some explanation for the discrepancy in the monthly trends.
I'd be interested in your reaction if GISS, for example, were guilty of such an obvious error. I doubt that an explanation that it didn't affect the trend much would satisfy you.
Will you now use the latest AGW propaganda to defend it by denying(hey, I could learn to like that word) climate models, and hence the CO2 AGW hypothesis, clearly show the "hot spot" that doesn't exist in reality?
Why do you think the CO2 AGW hypothesis relies on the "hot spot". I would have thought the hot spot was a feature of strong feedback. So could you explain it for me? I'd would have also thought the the "hot spot" would be a feature of any increase in forcing. Could you also explain that?
BTW, have you got any temperature predictions for this winter. I know you predicted plunging temperatures last year - any thoughts on the end of 2009 and 2010.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 31, 2009 15:29:02 GMT
For what its worth, I will give you my prediction. I see continued cooling as the norm.
There are so many climate forces aligning themselves to a continued cool down, that I just can't see a heat buildup.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 1, 2009 11:00:12 GMT
For what its worth, I will give you my prediction. I see continued cooling as the norm.
There are so many climate forces aligning themselves to a continued cool down, that I just can't see a heat buildup
If I were as confident as you I'd get myself over to James Annan's site and see if I could strike a tasty little bet. I think you can still get a bet about 2012-2017 being colder than 1998-2003. No need to put money up front. JA seems willing to trust punters that they will pay up.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 1, 2009 13:10:24 GMT
For what its worth, I will give you my prediction. I see continued cooling as the norm.
There are so many climate forces aligning themselves to a continued cool down, that I just can't see a heat buildupIf I were as confident as you I'd get myself over to James Annan's site and see if I could strike a tasty little bet. I think you can still get a bet about 2012-2017 being colder than 1998-2003. No need to put money up front. JA seems willing to trust punters that they will pay up. Thank you. I hadn't heard of this fellow before, and I just may hve to take him up on it. Altho, it seems a few bucks is not worth his time, and I don't have more than a few bucks to wager.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2009 4:56:18 GMT
No need to put money up front. JA seems willing to trust punters that they will pay up. LOL! No doubt so he doesn't have to put up any money too!
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 2, 2009 18:47:42 GMT
Christy said he would look into it. Nice that you once again cherry picked and left out the last statement he made:It's not me that's cherrypicking. You're the one that's decided that minor inconsistencies over tiny regions of the earth mean that the surface temperature record is riddled with UH problems. Why is the surface trend higher than the LT? It isn't - not since 1992 anyway. Hadley, GISS and RSS are all ~0.16 deg per decade since the start of the satellite era. UAH is the odd one out probably because it's temperature measurements in the early satellite period are too low. This would provide some explanation for the discrepancy in the monthly trends. I'd be interested in your reaction if GISS, for example, were guilty of such an obvious error. I doubt that an explanation that it didn't affect the trend much would satisfy you. Will you now use the latest AGW propaganda to defend it by denying(hey, I could learn to like that word) climate models, and hence the CO2 AGW hypothesis, clearly show the "hot spot" that doesn't exist in reality?Why do you think the CO2 AGW hypothesis relies on the "hot spot". I would have thought the hot spot was a feature of strong feedback. So could you explain it for me? I'd would have also thought the the "hot spot" would be a feature of any increase in forcing. Could you also explain that? BTW, have you got any temperature predictions for this winter. I know you predicted plunging temperatures last year - any thoughts on the end of 2009 and 2010. Why do you continue mining for "correlation" between the different temperature products? They are diverging, period. Why do you think the CO2 AGW hypothesis relies on the "hot spot". I would have thought the hot spot was a feature of strong feedback. So could you explain it for me? I'd would have also thought the the "hot spot" would be a feature of any increase in forcing. Could you also explain that? I don't need to explain anything, you do. ;D How many times must we be through this? www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.pdfTropospheric 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 then did Santer need to publish a new paper attempting to defend the "hot spot" using junk statistics (and limited time period) to counter Douglass 07? Santer's paper was so bad even Judith Curry concurred. How long can you play the charade? Gavin and the Big Red Dog ;D www.climateaudit.org/?p=4731 When observations don't match the hypothesis, True Believers suddenly discover they didn't really mean it; now the talking points are the troposphere can warm from any source. That it isn't warming faster than the surface means what? It is interesting you use the same argument as socold, but can't cite any references to back your alternate hypothesis. Did you make it up on your own? No, the "hot spot" has been a pillar of CO2 AGW from the start. Hansen saw the writing on the wall and published a new and improved version of AGW by claiming the oceans tell the story. Yes, they do tell a story, but that isn't working out either. This is how an irrefutable hypothesis is created; no matter what happens, it cannot be falsified. Ah, but it can..... Lindzen makes the statements: wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/richard-lindzen-3.pptWhat was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man. What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science. One can reasonably expect that opportunism of the weak will lead to efforts to alter the data (though the results presented here have survived several alterations of the data already).
Let me guess, this doesn't matter either.... It's not me that's cherrypicking. You're the one that's decided that minor inconsistencies over tiny regions of the earth mean that the surface temperature record is riddled with UH problems.
LOL, the surface temperature record only covers tiny regions of the earth, (and shrinking) and the potential for error is the rule, not the exception. Point out where Watts is wrong (supporting documentation available upon request). Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdfYou keep looking for periods of time where you like to promote the notion of "agreement" between satellite and the surface. What you don't comprehend is they shouldn't be! A problem is the differences are in the wrong direction. You also fail to note the divergence taking place right before your eyes, but refuse to acknowledge it. It doesn't take a climate "scientist" to understand problems with poor placement of thermometers and UHI. Look up Metrology. It would be laughed out of existence if used by any industry under a Quality System audit.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 2, 2009 21:02:19 GMT
You keep looking for periods of time where you like to promote the notion of "agreement" between satellite and the surface.
I don't need to "keep looking". The agreement exists. Over the 48 US states where Anthony Watts claims there is a siting problem UAH actually shows more warming than GISS.
Can you explain that?
Point out where Watts is wrong (supporting documentation available upon request).
Anthony's problem is that he's not really sure what he's trying to achieve. Is it to show that the UHI effect exists? Why - we know it does. Is he trying to show that the UH effect has significantly affected the global temperature trend? If so, he will almost certainly fail.
(1) 70% of surface temperatures come from the oceans. (2) Satellites and surface agree over most land regions (3) Any recent divergence will not be due to UH. (4) Unless the trend of UH has risen then UH cannot affect the overall trend.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 3, 2009 0:04:43 GMT
You keep looking for periods of time where you like to promote the notion of "agreement" between satellite and the surface.I don't need to "keep looking". The agreement exists. Over the 48 US states where Anthony Watts claims there is a siting problem UAH actually shows more warming than GISS. Can you explain that? Point out where Watts is wrong (supporting documentation available upon request).Anthony's problem is that he's not really sure what he's trying to achieve. Is it to show that the UHI effect exists? Why - we know it does. Is he trying to show that the UH effect has significantly affected the global temperature trend? If so, he will almost certainly fail. (1) 70% of surface temperatures come from the oceans. (2) Satellites and surface agree over most land regions (3) Any recent divergence will not be due to UH. (4) Unless the trend of UH has risen then UH cannot affect the overall trend. Over the 48 US states where Anthony Watts claims there is a siting problem UAH actually shows more warming than GISS. GISS (the only one) makes an attempt to account for UHI in the U.S., and we all know the last big "adjustment" tutored by Karl was in 1999, don't we? Satellites will pick up UHI affects. Have you thought about that? I'll wait for you to step into the pile of dung..... (1) 70% of surface temperatures come from the oceans. And how well is that measured? Since ARGO was implemented, OHC has mysteriously stopped increasing. Then there are the "adjustments" to SST measurements taken 60+ years ago. Also, SST is not air temperature, so what is your point?(2) Satellites and surface agree over most land regions What makes you think they should agree? They shouldn't agree, that's the point. The atmosphere should be warming at a faster right. Sheesh. (3) Any recent divergence will not be due to UH. How do you know that? (4) Unless the trend of UH has risen then UH cannot affect the overall trend. LOL, have you even read anything on the subject of UHI? It isn't all about UHI to begin with; it's Quality Control as well.www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdfI have about two dozen such studies. You've got Oh yes, assurances from IPCC lackeys (Parker, Peterson and Jones) that UHI is "accounted for" or "doesn't affect trends". www.bca.gov.sg/ResearchInnovation/others/UHI%20_2004-001_%20rev.pdf
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 0:42:40 GMT
Over the 48 US states where Anthony Watts claims there is a siting problem UAH actually shows more warming than GISS. GISS (the only one) makes an attempt to account for UHI in the U.S., and we all know the last big "adjustment" tutored by Karl was in 1999, don't we? Satellites will pick up UHI affects. Have you thought about that? I'll wait for you to step into the pile of dung..... So UAH shows more warming than GISTEMP because GISTEMP adjusts for UHI and UAH doesn't? I can't see that argument catching on with the skeptics. His point is probably one I like to raise. Ie that you require multiple coincidental explainations here, not one simple explaination like "It's UHI". You can have UHI as an explaination for land surface warming only. You need something else to explain sea surface temperature warming, and something else again to explain tropospheric warming as UHI can't explain that either. It smacks of desperation to seek out a string of 3 independent and coincidental biases creating a false warming trend in all 3 areas. More reasonable is that there is a genuine warming trend in all three areas.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 3, 2009 8:08:55 GMT
GISS (the only one) makes an attempt to account for UHI in the U.S., and we all know the last big "adjustment" tutored by Karl was in 1999, don't we? Satellites will pick up UHI affects. Have you thought about that? I'll wait for you to step into the pile of dung.....
No I haven't thought about that because it's complete nonsense. The UHI effect happens when a relatively small urbanised region measures a higher temperature than a much larger surrounding 'rural' area. The 'problem' being that a disproportionate number of thermometers are located near urbanised areas. If you were to place thermometers on every sq km of land, say , across the US and take an average of all readings the UH effect would not be measurable because the average would be overwhelmingly dominated by the non-urban readings.
That is similar to the satellites. The satellites do not select cities to sample temperature.
Socold has addressed the rest of your post.
You need to post less and think more.
Magellan, tell you what, why don't you email John Christy or Roy Spencer and ask them what effect UH has on their AMSU readings. When you get the response you can use it to start a special thread.
|
|