|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 9, 2009 8:44:07 GMT
The intended purpose of the sensors was weather recording for which purpose a sensor on a roof probably isn't much of a problem. The complication of a climate record from those recordings was started later by people who took the weather sensor data and tried to derive a climate record from it. It was impossible at that point to go back in time and undo already existing local sensor biases. So with prevention not an option, they instead went down the path of trying to statistically detect and remove the local biases instead by comparing stations with their neighbours. At the end of the day it comes down to are we talking about good science or bad science? Humans being humans if you cant repeat the same experiments you cant rely on the results because everybody wants the answer they want to get to support their belief system. It appears the 100 year record is horribly compromised and never was a measurement system fit for the purpose of measuring tiny changes in temperature. So now we have 30 years of satellite data. An almost meaningless amount of information. And the bigger trend is that in at least the northern hemisphere it is more or less proven beyond doubt the area began to cool many hundreds of years ago and only relatively recently began warming up again. |
|
|
|
Post by glc on Aug 9, 2009 9:06:17 GMT
What have the models got to do with it? LOL, near surface stations are used to compare to models for "accuracy".....sheesh.Sometimes, I have to admit to being puzzled by the points being made on this blog. Just to go back over therecent exchanges I wrote: "July was the 2nd warmest on record". Clearly this was a reference to the UAH satellite record as GISS and Hadley have not yet released July anomalies. Stevenotsteve wrote: "Still think it's warming outside the models glc?" I replied: "What have the models got to do with it? " Magellan stuck his oar in with this "LOL, near surface stations are used to compare to models for "accuracy".....sheesh" So I'll ask again "what have the models got to do with it". Here 'it' refers to my original point about July being the second warmest in the satellite record. Other bits and bobs Magellan: If it is legitimately found UAH is not up to par and RSS or some other satellite product is better, I'll go with it. Until then, keep drinking the surface station Kool Aid if that's what gets you off. I'm happy to go with UAH. There is little difference in the trends over the past ~20 years anyway. Icefisher: Whoa! A one month heat wave!
What was it you said 6 years without warming isn't a trend?
Guess we will know this is a trend in how many months? 95?
LOL!Actually we have a warming trend for ~30 years. My reference to the July figure was to point out that now that the ENSO status had switched to neutral/warm the cold anomalies (actually not 'cold' just 'average') had ended, i.e. there is no sunspot effect. This was something socold had predicted. Modesty prevents me from naming others. Magellan: That is interesting coming from those who aren't aware that asphalt parking lots, barbecue grills and roof tops get much warmer than grassy knolls and placing thermometers near them will exaggerate the temperature, despite denial by warmologists it "doesn't matter". Please no more blabber on anomalies, I know what they are and have read your proposition that when the "cool" stations (airports for example ) are removed, the trend doesn't change. It's bohunk That's the spirit. When all the data and analysis indicate that you are totally wrong - just adopt an attitude of wilful, blind ignorance.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 9, 2009 10:20:09 GMT
Actually we have a warming trend for ~30 years. My reference to the July figure was to point out that now that the ENSO status had switched to neutral/warm the cold anomalies (actually not 'cold' just 'average') had ended, i.e. there is no sunspot effect. This was something socold had predicted. Modesty prevents me from naming others. Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn GLC. What you need though is not some 5 to 12 month El Nino that would be statistically predictable in a cooling trend; but something consistent with continued warming in the form of an El Nino that lasts well over a year and drives annual temperatures to record or near record levels. |
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 9, 2009 10:36:45 GMT
When all the data and analysis indicate that you are totally wrong - just adopt an attitude of wilful, blind ignorance. How do you calibrate a satellite unless you know what the temperature is over the reference area and you know what the atmospheric temperature distortion is between the satellite and reference area and you always know what the atmospheric distortion is between the satellite and the measured area after calibration? Obviously you can come up with a calibration but how good is the precision of the measurement? + or - what approximately? If a volcano erupts in say Russia what influence does that have on what is measured? Have before and after and during calibrations been carried out for such events? If you take two identical satellites what is the difference in measurements they produce when calibrated over the same area at the same time? Why are NASA wanting to preserve the integrity of the 30 year record of some measurements by using the same satellites when other newer satellites have better sensing equipment? Why is that so relevant to NASA? |
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Aug 10, 2009 1:03:22 GMT
There is a new (alarmist of course) piece on Science Daily: "The rain band near the equator that determines the supply of freshwater to nearly a billion people throughout the tropics and subtropics has been creeping north for more than 300 years, probably because of a warmer world, according to research published in the July issue of Nature Geoscience. If the band continues to migrate at just less than a mile (1.4 kilometers) a year, which is the average for all the years it has been moving north, then some Pacific islands near the equator – even those that currently enjoy abundant rainfall – may be drier within decades and starved of freshwater by midcentury or sooner. The prospect of additional warming because of greenhouse gases means that situation could happen even sooner." The original article apparently makes the point that: "increasing greenhouse gases could potentially shift the primary band of precipitation in the tropics with profound implications for the societies and economies that depend on it," Surely the big question here should be what has been causing the warming over these last 300 years as we exited the LIA? Can't really be AGW over that time frame can it? The Science Daily piece is here: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701135535.htm |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 10, 2009 5:49:55 GMT
Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn GLC. What you need though is not some 5 to 12 month El Nino that would be statistically predictable in a cooling trend; but something consistent with continued warming in the form of an El Nino that lasts well over a year and drives annual temperatures to record or near record levels. Not that I'm saying anything for or against GLC in agreeing with this but you're right with respect to us needing actual increases in temperatures for someone to claim "warming". Even if temperatures stayed in the ranges of the last decade for a hundred years it would be a black eye for AGW "science". A decade without warming is a devastating blow to all of the high end guestimates from the models. You just can't get there from here without some radical change in behavior. Of course, we never should have even suspected we'd hit those temperatures. The warming rate was never sufficient for anything higher than about 2C of total warming and that rate was for a period that should have been warming naturally. The warming rate of the warming period is actually strong evidence against substantial AGW. |
|
