|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 13, 2015 15:25:28 GMT
Tom Karl of NOAA recently published a paper denying the global warming “hiatus”. This flies in the face of the satellite temperature data. Scientists, both warmists and skeptics, agree that the lower troposphere global temperature , the area measured by the satellites, should warm at approximately 1.2 times the rate of the surface. When the satellite anomalies show a hiatus while NOAA surface anomalies show no hiatus, then there’s clearly an inconsistency. Which temperature sets are more likely to accurately represent global temperatures? Both surface and satellite anomalies require interpretations and adjustments of the raw data. So the question of scientific bias immediately comes up. Based on the “ClimateGate” revelations and the public comments of those in charge of the major global surface temperature anomalies (GISS, NOAA, Hadley Center), the surface temperature purveyors are clearly biased towards high rates of global warming. On the other hand UAH, the original source of satellite temperatures, is managed by Christy and Spencer who clearly are skeptics. But RSS, which in recent years provides a second source for satellite temperatures, has a chief scientist and spokesman, Carl Mears, who is an apparent warmist who uses the term denialist frequently. For many years RSS produced numbers which showed more rapid warming than UAH and they pointed out problems with the UAH anomalies. Over time UAH has recalculated their anomalies incorporating corrections to problems including those raised by RSS and as it turns out, the most recent Version 6 results are almost identical to the RSS anomalies. So we have something very unusual in Climate Science, the warmists and the skeptics who do their own independent calculations of satellite anomalies agree on something. Global temperatures have been flat for 18 + years. Some have pointed out that radiosonde (balloon) measurements of the lower troposphere temperatures do not correspond well with to the satellite temperatures, perhaps indicating a problem with the satellite temperatures.
The satellite temperatures are based on uniform global coverage. Radiosonde is for a selected few areas where balloons are released. During a period of significant temperature change such as the Super El Nino in 1988, the satellite anomalies increased significantly while those areas covered by radiosonde did not increase as much. The problem was that the radiosonde temperatures are not from the area where the temperatures increased the most. In the longer term as these oscillations smooth out, the 2 sources agree much better. One significant point which adds to the credibility of the satellite anomalies is that there are several satellites which produce useable data. Each satellite has its own idiosyncrasies requiring its own set of adjustments. The adjusted results of the varied satellites correlate well and all of these satellites are showing the hiatus and the warmists and the skeptics come up with the same answer, at least as of now. I think you will find that there is extremely close agreement between radiosonde and satellite microwave sounding metrics. See: Upper Air Temperature Validation MSU & AMSU Data Comparison with In Situ Observations" Conclusion
The excellent agreement between all TLT datasets in the northern extratropics should put to rest any doubt that there is significant warming of the troposphere in this region. This level of agreement is likely to be due to the high quality of most of the radiosonde stations in this region, the dense sampling of radisondes (which increases the likelihood that neighbor-based homogenizations techniques are successful), along with the relatively small diurnal adjustments needed for the satellite datasets.
In the tropics, the agreement between TLT datasets is not as good, with RSS typically showing more warming than either the UAH or radiosonde datasets. Both the radiosonde and satellite datasets may contain errors in this region. Many tropical radiosonde stations show substantial inhomogenities, which may be under corrected, leading to a cooling bias (Thorne et al 2005, Sherwood et al 2008) though the amount of this bias in unknown. The differences between the satellite datasets in the tropics are likely to be due to differences between the corrections both groups make for diurnal drift. "The major problem with climatologists is their willingness to invent data where none exists (in time or position) by use of global algorithms and then their complete failure to validate the invented values. They then proceed to use the invented values in models that generate the results with a precision of hundredths of a degree C without any error bars. In any other branch of science they would be laughed out of the room but because their massaged output is useful politically they get funding and anything that gets funding is sacrosanct in today's academia and trumps science or ethics. So Karl invents data at the poles uses known incorrect ship intake values as is and corrects known accurate data upward to match the known inaccurate data. His results do not match any real world observations such as the satellites or ARGO floats and this would normally result in discard of the paper as it has been invalidated by observation. Everyone knows the publication of the paper is completely unscientific including Karl but it is the result his funders wanted to be published before the Paris COP - so it gets the full media attention from the trained seals of reporters. Science is dying as we watch.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 15, 2015 15:25:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 15, 2015 17:39:32 GMT
Who ya gonna believe? The models ... or your lying eyes?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 15, 2015 18:08:40 GMT
Who ya gonna believe? The models ... or your lying eyes? My eyes, and they don't lie.......
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 16, 2015 7:11:17 GMT
Who ya gonna believe? The models ... or your lying eyes? My eyes, and they don't lie....... I didn't think they did!
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 4, 2015 14:27:20 GMT
Here we are on August 4 and the Hadcrut4 "artificial" anomalies still aren't out for June. There is a lot of messaging and recalculation going on.
Why isn't there more discussion among the climate scientists about the major and growing discrepancy between the so-called "surface" anomalies and the satellite-based anomalies which according to the "experts" should be growing at 1.2 times the surface temperatures?
Because of the large discrepancy, I'm going to add the RSS satellite anomaly to my quarterly global warming updates which have been based only on Hadcrut4.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Aug 4, 2015 14:53:16 GMT
I'd predict another top 4 month and the run of 'warmest 12 months on record' to continue..... then we get into the interesting months where nino impact will begin to creep in!
This will be a warm year indeed but how will next year fare??? How much of a fall back do we expect? Well I think 2010 is about a close as I can figure.......
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Aug 4, 2015 16:33:11 GMT
I'd predict another top 4 month and the run of 'warmest 12 months on record' to continue..... then we get into the interesting months where nino impact will begin to creep in! This will be a warm year indeed but how will next year fare??? How much of a fall back do we expect? Well I think 2010 is about a close as I can figure....... It has not been a warm year where I live...in fact the average temp has probably wiped clean about 150 years of global warming!
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Aug 4, 2015 17:26:03 GMT
Here neither. It has been temperate, coolish and fairly wet for about 2.5 years now.
Besides that, as you already are well aware, satellite data, which has not been tampered with, shows a small 18 year cooling trend. Completely disagrees with the "smoothed" surface station data.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 10, 2015 20:03:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 10, 2015 20:51:21 GMT
Climate change could harm a lot of animals, That is a given.
The larger question is, how do we stop climate change?? Climate changing is a natural order of events.
This whole thing just gets sadder all the time.
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Aug 10, 2015 22:04:26 GMT
Climate change could harm a lot of animals, That is a given. The larger question is, how do we stop climate change?? Climate changing is a natural order of events. This whole thing just gets sadder all the time. There are always winners and losers as climate changes,no big deal.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 11, 2015 3:24:32 GMT
Climate change could harm a lot of animals, That is a given. The larger question is, how do we stop climate change?? Climate changing is a natural order of events. This whole thing just gets sadder all the time. And in the past, we assume that most species dealt with such issues through migration. However, as we utilize and change more and more of the planet, habitat fragmentation expands and migration corridors become more limited. These truely are human-generated issues. But, these too, change over time. In my area of the mid-west, the abandonment of smaller farms and set asides of conservation easements have helped a lot. At the end of the depression era, you couldn't find a deer in these parts. They were all eaten by hungry families. Hunters and increasing prosperity restored the populations. With the decline in hunting, they are now a pest. Cougars had been hunted to extinction, but they're back, and more and more are being spotted moving down the watershed green belts that dissect the Missouri River drainage. Anybody with a little bit of land can do their part by restoring small patches of native vegetation and restricting the use toxic chemicals. AND YOU DON'T EVEN NEED A GRANT. The continued reconnection of habitat corridors through local and state-sponsored initiatives and continuing education seems to have been remarkably successful in certain areas. Perhaps CAGW devotees could spend more of their time doing something useful for a change.
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Aug 11, 2015 11:59:27 GMT
The Hadcrut4 June anomalies are finally available, so here’s the quarterly update of my 2007 global warming forecast covering the average values from 2007 to mid-2015. Global warming is as predicted for the Hadcrut4 anomaly and the RSS satellite-based anomaly is 0.1C cooler than predicted. Over the past 6 months both MVENSO and PDO have been quite warm and as a result, each is about 0.2 above my prediction. Global temperatures have been flat for several years and a cool Ocean Current phase is the logical explanation. But the recent warm MVENSO and PDO raises the possibility that the cool phase is ending short of the 30-year term which history has shown we should expect. At this point there’s not enough understanding of the Ocean Current mechanisms to prove it one way or the other. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens over the next 2 or 3 years and beyond. One key thing to watch is whether the RSS anomalies begin to turn up sharply in response to a possible long term change in the Ocean Currents and remain high 3 or 4 months after the current El Nino conditions end.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Aug 11, 2015 22:23:29 GMT
The Hadcrut4 June anomalies are finally available, so here’s the quarterly update of my 2007 global warming forecast covering the average values from 2007 to mid-2015. Global warming is as predicted for the Hadcrut4 anomaly and the RSS satellite-based anomaly is 0.1C cooler than predicted. Over the past 6 months both MVENSO and PDO have been quite warm and as a result, each is about 0.2 above my prediction. Global temperatures have been flat for several years and a cool Ocean Current phase is the logical explanation. But the recent warm MVENSO and PDO raises the possibility that the cool phase is ending short of the 30-year term which history has shown we should expect. At this point there’s not enough understanding of the Ocean Current mechanisms to prove it one way or the other. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens over the next 2 or 3 years and beyond. One key thing to watch is whether the RSS anomalies begin to turn up sharply in response to a possible long term change in the Ocean Currents and remain high 3 or 4 months after the current El Nino conditions end. Duwayne, I see you're still earning that gold star. :-) Maybe I missed something you mentioned earlier, but when you use the term "cool ocean current phase" what exactly are you including in that term? ENSO? AMO? PDO? A combination thereof? Something else altogether? Thanks!
|
|